record_artifact_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation through the verb 'Record' but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, whether it appends to a log, or any permission requirements. The description also conflates 'injected' and 'consulted' without explaining if these produce different outcomes.

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, concise sentence of 12 words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler or redundancy, and every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully useful. It does not explain the tool's role in the broader workflow, what happens after recording, or the significance of the recorded event. The schema covers parameter syntax, but the description still lacks guidance on how and when to use this tool effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so each of the 8 parameters is individually documented. The description adds minimal context by specifying the artifact is 'durable on-disk', which reinforces the meaning of 'artifact_path'. However, it does not elaborate on how parameters like 'query', 'score', or 'metadata' are used together, nor does it add value beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'Record' with a clear resource ('durable on-disk memory artifact') and indicates the action (injected or consulted). It distinguishes this tool from retrieval siblings like 'get_artifact_reads' or 'memory_search' by focusing on the recording of an event. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other recording tools like 'store_interaction' or 'store_session_context'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context in which this recording should occur. The single sentence merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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