dialectic_claim

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It mentions registration (creation) and return format but lacks details on side effects, overwriting behavior, authorization needs, or error conditions.

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?

Extremely concise with three sentences: purpose, optional evidence detail, domain recommendation, and return format. No wasted words, front-loaded with core action.

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 4 parameters and 1 required, description covers all parameters and return format via output schema. Missing only potential constraints like uniqueness or idempotency, but adequate for common usage.

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 0%, yet description adds significant meaning: explains 'evidence' as a quote, 'evidence_kind' defaults to 'support' with alternatives, and 'domain' gives recommended values. Only 'claim' is not elaborated but is self-explanatory.

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?

Description starts with clear verb 'Register' and resource 'new claim'. It explains the action precisely and distinguishes from siblings like 'dialectic_evidence' by focusing on initial registration with optional evidence seeding.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The optional evidence seeding implies a use case for first-time evidence, but alternatives like dialectic_evidence for later additions are not mentioned.

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