record_agent_execution_feedback

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 mentions logging to 'local JSONL log' and updating 'aggregate pack metrics', which gives some context about data persistence and aggregation. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a write operation (implied but not stated).

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Record agent execution feedback') and adds necessary context about the dual actions (logging and metrics). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 high complexity (20 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details (e.g., side effects, error cases), and while an output schema exists, the description doesn't address the tool's overall context adequately for such a parameter-rich tool.

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 description provides no information about any of the 20 parameters, despite 0% schema description coverage. It doesn't explain what 'packSlug', 'outcome', 'dryRun', or other parameters mean, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's structural definitions without semantic context.

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 specific action ('Record') and resource ('agent execution feedback'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying it's for logging and metrics updates. It's not a tautology of the name/title as it adds context about the purpose ('for future ranking and promotion').

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or differentiate from similar tools like 'record_skill_execution_feedback' in the sibling list. The context is implied but not explicit.

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