tentra

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'persist' data, implying a write operation, but fails to detail critical aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of 11 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not compensate for the lack of structured data, failing to explain parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 11 parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not explain any parameters, such as what 'job_id', 'snapshot_id', or 'semantic_role_slug' represent, nor does it clarify the relationships between parameters like 'file_id' and 'symbol_id'. This lack of semantic information hinders effective tool invocation.

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 ('persist') and the resource ('agent-extracted semantic node for a file or symbol'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'record_contract' or 'record_decision', which also involve recording operations, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other recording tools like 'record_contract' or 'record_decision'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.

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