lore_capture

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: append-only, nothing synthesized, backend only stores it. It also clarifies default project resolution and optional node creation.

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 clear and front-loaded, but somewhat verbose. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise without losing information.

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 simple append tool with no output schema, the description covers all aspects: purpose, behavior, parameter details, and use cases. Complete and self-contained.

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?

Adds significant meaning beyond the 100% schema coverage: explains that node creates a folder if missing, project defaults from .lorerc/env var, capturedAt for importing past sessions, and body is the full session body.

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 ('append') and resource ('append-only session') and specifies scope ('project- and user-scoped'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on sessions as units of work.

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?

Describes when to use (for a unit of work like ticket/bug/feature) and provides context on default behavior (project-level) and optional node attachment. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use.

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