learn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It covers secret/PII scrubbing, background indexing, immediate return, and the 500-character cap, which are meaningful beyond the basic 'save' semantics. It does not mention whether the operation is reversible or requires auth, but the disclosed behaviors are substantial.

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 front-loaded with purpose and differentiation, then behavioral details, then parameter semantics. Every sentence carries distinct information and the argument list is compact and readable.

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 write tool with no annotations and minimal schema, the description covers the what, when, how, behavioral side effects, and parameters. The output schema covers return values, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 compensate, and it does thoroughly. It adds the 500-character constraint for lesson, explains topic as a domain tag with examples, and defines name as a user-visible slug for later reference — all meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb ('save') and resource ('distilled lesson') and defines precisely what qualifies as a lesson versus a fact or URL. It explicitly distinguishes learn from sibling tools remember and ingest, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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 explicit selection criteria: remember for durable facts, ingest for URLs, learn for distilled lessons with retrieval preference. It also provides a boundary condition — lessons over 500 characters should use remember — leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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