scar_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose what happens on duplicate entries, whether it overwrites, authorization needs, or side effects. The minimal description ('record so it can be retrieved') lacks transparency.

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 concise (one sentence) with no wasted words, but it does not fully earn its place as it under-specifies behavior and parameters. Could be more informative while remaining concise.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, behavior on errors or duplicates, or any limitations. The agent lacks confidence to use it correctly.

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 low (25%). Only 'resolution' has a description. The tool description provides no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, leaving agents to infer the format and semantics of 'agent', 'error_type', and '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 uses a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('SCAR memory') to clearly state the tool's action. It implies storing failure resolutions for later retrieval, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like scar_lookup which retrieves. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scar_lookup for retrieval). No prerequisites, context, or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned. The usage is only implied.

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