record_attempt

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

Beyond the annotations (which are minimal—no readOnly, idempotent, or destructive hints), the description adds that the tool 'Updates reliability aggregates', which is a behavioral side effect. The example also shows that the tool accepts a note. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three sentences plus a clear example. The first sentence states purpose, second summarizes usage, third gives a concrete scenario. No wasted words. Slightly more structure could list parameters, but overall efficient.

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 has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core use case but lacks detailed parameter explanations. It is adequate for a simple scenario but incomplete for complex parameter usage. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It only explains probe_id and success via the example, and implies category is the first argument. It completely omits note, latency_ms, and category details. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly set all parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Record a self-test outcome' with a specific verb and resource. It also notes side effect 'Updates reliability aggregates.' The example differentiates it from sibling tools like register_probe or run_probe by focusing on recording outcomes.

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 explicitly spells out when to use this tool: 'for both registered probes (pass probe_id) and ad-hoc self-observations'. It provides a concrete example. However, it does not mention when not to use it or offer alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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