Tell Heard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that when defaults to now and that a non-shrinking gap appears as NOT MOVING in tell_show, but it does not say whether the call inserts/appends, whether permissions are required, or what side effects occur.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the trigger/scoping information comes first. The first sentence is packed with parentheticals and is harder to parse than necessary, but it is not verbose.

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 five-parameter mutation-style tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete: it omits id/project semantics and the core write behavior. The output schema covers return values, but that does not fill the input and behavioral gaps.

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%, so the description must define all five parameters. It explains words (verbatim, 20 words or fewer), the source-like location (voice note id, exam, picture round), and when (UTC ISO, default now), but project and id are never described, and 'voice note id' blurs the distinction between id and source.

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 names a specific scenario—repeating a tell—and lists the record contents, and it references tell_show for the downstream consequence. But it never states the action verb (record/log) and 'tell' remains domain jargon, so the purpose is only inferable rather than clear.

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 phrase 'named a tell again' implies the triggering situation, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not guidance, and no routing against tell_add or the other tell_* siblings. An agent must infer that this records a repeat observation.

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