hai_park

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 does disclose a key behavioral trait: the operation does not change ACTIVE lanes and parks the item in the inbox. However, it does not describe any other side effects, such as whether the item is appended, deduplicated, or returned, which leaves some transparency gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: the action, the destination, and the constraint are all communicated efficiently.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It gives the core operation and a key constraint, but it omits usage conditions, sibling differentiation, and any description of the optional tags parameter. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the behavioral and usage gaps remain.

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. It loosely maps the 'text' parameter by calling the item a 'thought/meta item', but it says nothing about the optional 'tags' parameter or how it should be used. This is partial compensation at best.

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 ('Park') with a clear resource ('a thought/meta item in HAI inbox') and adds a meaningful scope constraint ('without changing ACTIVE lanes'). It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the similarly named sibling hai_park_item, so it misses the top score for sibling distinction.

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 phrase 'without changing ACTIVE lanes' implies when this tool is appropriate: when the agent wants to park an item without affecting active lanes. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives such as hai_park_item or hai_intake, so usage context is only implied.

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