dialectic_claim

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

Annotations are minimal (none set), so the description bears the burden. It discloses the return format and optional seeding, but doesn't detail side effects (e.g., state changes, idempotency) beyond what annotations provide. It's adequate but not rich.

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 one well-organized paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then explains optional inputs. It's concise with no wasted words, though a bulleted list might improve scanability.

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 the tool's simplicity (4 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers essential aspects: creation action, optional evidence, domain guidance, and return format. It lacks constraints (e.g., claim length) but is otherwise complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively explains all parameters: claim, evidence, evidence_kind (with default and options), and domain (with recommended values). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 action ('Register a new claim about the user') and the optional evidence seeding. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'dialectic_evidence', the verb+resource combination is specific enough.

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 offers guidance on optional evidence seeding and recommended domain values, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., adding evidence later via 'dialectic_evidence'). The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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