Record Verified Continuity Action

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states that a new state handle is returned, which is useful, but it omits critical details such as side effects (e.g., mutating session state), prerequisites (e.g., a valid existing session), error conditions, or idempotency behavior. This is insufficient for a stateful recording tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It clearly states the primary action and outcome in a compact form, making it easy to read and process.

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 tool with 7 parameters, 5 required, no annotations, no output schema, and very low schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the meaning of the required parameters, the expected format of 'completed host action', or the nature of the returned state handle, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is only 14%, meaning most parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining any of the required parameters like operation_id, action_kind, request, or action_result. It only mentions a generic 'state handle', leaving the agent without semantic understanding of the key inputs.

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 'Capture' and identifies the resource as a 'completed host action' through AgentSession, making the tool's core function clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like session_turn or session_verify, so it loses a point for lacking sibling distinction.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'completed host action' implies it should be used after an action is finished, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool references are given, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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