learn

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true, which the description does not contradict or explain. The description adds context about persistence and file storage, but it doesn't disclose any potentially destructive behavior (e.g., overwriting existing learnings) that might align with the annotation. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description could elaborate on side effects.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains persistence, and the third provides storage location. Every sentence earns its place without wasted 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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or any side effects beyond storing files. It covers the core function and storage but doesn't describe list results, add confirmations, or how destructiveHint applies. Given the tool has 9 parameters and two actions, the description is somewhat incomplete.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, so the description doesn't need to repeat parameter details. It doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying the relationship between 'add' and 'list' actions or how 'project' auto-detection works. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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+resource pair ('Capture and query learnings') and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on learnings. It also provides storage details ('Stored as individual files in projects/<slug>/learnings/'), which adds concrete scope and context beyond the tool name.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to persist discoveries across sessions. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'persist discoveries across sessions' conveys the intended usage scenario. This is more than implied usage but lacks explicit comparisons to sibling tools like 'capture' or 'read'.

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