cerebro_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates that this is a write/record operation and that future sessions can retrieve it with cerebro_recall. It does not mention any destructive side effects, but the examples imply non-overwriting behavior. A minor gap is not specifying whether updating an existing note is possible.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. It is structured effectively with examples and a guideline, without any unnecessary words.

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 low complexity of this note-taking tool and the presence of an output schema (not needed to explain return values), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and provides examples, ensuring an agent can correctly select and invoke the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates. It explains the 'content' parameter (1-3 sentences, storing the why) and the optional 'topic' (short tag). It provides concrete examples, making the parameter usage very clear.

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 clearly states the resource: decisions, domain rules, or gotchas. It includes concrete examples and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'cerebro_recall' by mentioning retrieval in a future session.

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 states when to use this tool (to capture the 'why' that code cannot convey) and provides a guideline to keep content to 1-3 sentences. It also indicates that 'topic' is an optional short tag, giving clear usage context.

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