mcp_engram_record_reasoning_trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool produces 'well-named trace:* blocks,' surfaces via ki_hijacker, and can later be compressed via 0x10 functors. It does not mention destructive effects, idempotency, or error conditions, but the behavioral traits like creation and future use are well-covered.

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 paragraph of about five sentences, front-loaded with the main action. It efficiently conveys purpose, usage context, and system role without extraneous words. Although dense with jargon (trace:* blocks, 0x10 functors), it earns its place for the target audience. Minor deduction for density but still 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?

Given 12 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and a complex domain, the description covers the tool's role in the engram system, its preferred status, and specific call points. It assumes familiarity with ritual disciplines and ki_hijacker but provides sufficient context for the intended user. Missing details on return values or error handling are acceptable given the audience.

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 100% with each parameter already having a clear description. The tool's description provides overarching context (e.g., 'A/D/R triad') but does not add specific new information about parameters beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: recording a structured reasoning trace segment as first-class serial memory. It specifies the mechanism (automatic capture of decision points, justifications, forks) and contrasts with free-form notes, indicating it is preferred for future agent continuation. This specific verb+resource+scope effectively distinguishes from siblings like mcp_engram_quick_trace.

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 explicit usage context: 'Call from within the ritual disciplines at major forks, pre-edit justifications, and post-delta decisions.' It also references engram-working-memory Rule 5 and Spatial Discipline, giving domain-specific guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly compare with sibling tools (e.g., mcp_engram_quick_trace), so it misses explicit exclusions.

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