remember_failed_attempt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It correctly indicates a write operation (recording), but does not mention side effects, permissions, or what happens on duplicate entries. Adequate but could be more transparent.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and clear structure. Highly concise.

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?

For a simple recording tool with no output schema, the description covers the main inputs but lacks details on return behavior or limitations. Reasonably complete given the complexity, but could be enhanced.

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 coverage is low (40%). The description adds meaning by listing what to include (what was tried, why it failed, fix) which maps to params, but it omits the 'files' parameter entirely. Partially compensates but incomplete.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to record a failed approach to avoid repetition. It specifies what to include (what was tried, why it failed, actual fix) and distinguishes from sibling tools like remember_decision.

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 explicitly says when to use it (when an approach failed). It implies alternatives like remember_decision for successful decisions, but does not explicitly name them. Clear context provided.

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