Moth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the output is 'deterministic' and 'project-local'. It does not disclose if the tool modifies state (e.g., reads files, changes anything), required permissions, or potential side effects, leaving agents to infer behaviors.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it sacrifices critical parameter and usage details, which is a minor structural flaw given the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite having a rich input schema and output schema, the description omits explanation of parameter roles, return format, and usage context. For a complex analysis tool, this is incomplete, though the output schema may partially mitigate return value clarity.

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?

The input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the description adds no parameter information beyond mentioning 'error output' in the purpose. The other parameters (command, cwd, relevant_files, etc.) remain unexplained, forcing agents to guess their semantics.

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 analyzes error output and returns a deterministic project-local fix brief. It uses a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('error output'), and the mention of 'fix brief' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'remember_fix_result' which likely stores results.

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 the sibling 'remember_fix_result' or other alternatives. The description implicitly suggests using it when an error occurs, but does not specify prerequisites or exclude scenarios.

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

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

The description discloses that the tool records memory only under specified conditions. However, it lacks details about side effects, authorization needs, or what happens if conditions are unmet. No annotations exist to supplement.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes necessary conditional clauses. No redundant 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?

Given the tool has 7 required parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'fix memory' is, how to obtain analysis_id/fingerprint/stack, or what the output schema contains. An agent would struggle to use this tool 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?

The schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameters, forcing agents to infer meaning from names alone. This is a significant gap given the tool's complexity.

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's purpose: to record a verified fix result after a fix attempt and verification. It specifies the exact conditions (fix attempted, verification run, result passed/failed) and distinguishes from analyze_error.

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 clear context for when to use: only after a fix is attempted and verification run with a clear result. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the conditions are well-defined.

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