Record research activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that the tool 'persists research progress for later retrieval and reporting,' which communicates a write/save side effect. However, it does not describe idempotency, overwriting, date defaults, permissions, or other side-effect nuances, so it is only partially transparent.

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 brief and front-loaded with the action and trigger conditions. The activity_type enum listing adds length and duplicates schema information, but the overall structure is clear and easy to scan, so it remains 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?

The description provides enough context to understand the core purpose and invocation trigger, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is not required. Still, with nine parameters, zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no differentiation from similar record_* tools, the definition is not fully complete for an agent deciding exactly what to populate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it only lists the activity_type enum values that are already present in the schema. It alludes to problems, results, and next steps as recorded content, but it does not explain title, description, date, source, tags, or the semantics of optional fields, leaving significant gaps.

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 records a concrete research activity and lists the input scenarios (completed work, experiments, reading, problems, results, next steps). It is distinct from list_research_activities and other record_* siblings in intent, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 says to use this tool 'when the user reports completed work, experiments, reading, problems, results, or next steps,' providing concrete trigger conditions. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, so it misses the exclusion aspect required for a 5.

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