add_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It correctly states Pensieve does not read or follow the pointer and stores by reference. However, it omits details like idempotency, overwriting behavior, permissions, or whether the target entity must exist.

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 well-structured: a clear summary followed by an Args list. It is front-loaded with core purpose. One or two sentences could be trimmed without losing meaning, but overall it is efficiently written.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main functionality and parameter semantics well. It lacks details on return values, error scenarios, or side effects, but the essential context for correct invocation is present.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It lists all five parameters with meaningful explanations: target (stream/thread or note id), location (path/URL, stored by reference), hint (one-line usage), label (optional name), kind (inferred from location if omitted). This substantially adds beyond the schema's type-only info.

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 attaches an asset (a by-reference pointer) to a stream/thread or note. It distinguishes from storing content by noting Pensieve only stores the pointer. Examples like repo/dir at stream level versus article URL at note level further clarify purpose.

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 provides specific scenarios: attaching repo/dir at stream/thread level, and article URL or screenshot to specific note. It advises always including a one-line hint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, though context with sibling tools is implicit.

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