record_outcome

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose side effects. It does not state whether recording overwrites existing outcomes, is append-only, or whether there are any return values or error conditions. The phrase 'evidence accumulation' hints at non-destructive addition, but this is not explicit enough.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary filler. The main verb and object are front-loaded, and every phrase earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has four parameters and no output schema, so the description should provide adequate context. It does not explain what 'evidence accumulation' means in practice, the relationship between goal and step, or what happens after recording (e.g., return value, effects on related plans). The description is too minimal for the tool's role.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'success/fail' (success) and 'note', and indirectly 'step' via 'agent project step', but it entirely omits 'goal' and does not explain the relationship between goal and step. With a required 'goal' parameter, this is a significant gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Record' and identifies the resource as 'an execution outcome (success/fail + note) for an agent project step'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like practice_report or lesson_learned, and the parenthetical 'evidence accumulation' adds context about its role.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used when you need to store the result of executing a project step. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.