cerebro_record

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

No annotations provided, so description bears all behavioral burden. It tells it's a write operation that persists across sessions, but doesn't clarify if overwriting occurs, permissions required, or return value. With output schema existing but not referenced, transparency is moderate.

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 front-load purpose and usage guidance, with no wasted words. Very concise and efficient.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and sibling tools, the description is incomplete: it omits parameter explanations, behavioral details like idempotency, and any mention of output. The existing output schema doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 0%, yet description only explains 'summary' (1-3 dense sentences). 'path' and 'model' parameters are undocumented, leaving their meaning and usage ambiguous. Only partial help for one parameter.

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: storing an English understanding of a file for reuse. It uses a specific verb ('store') and resource ('English understanding'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling read tools like cerebro_get and cerebro_search by focusing on recording summaries.

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 gives when to use (to avoid re-analysis) and format guidance (1-3 dense sentences), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or mention of alternatives like cerebro_note. It provides clear context but no exclusions.

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