check_mistakes

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, its side effects, return value, or any behavioral traits. Without this, the agent cannot assess safety or impact.

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 one sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and key information. Brevity without substance is not effective.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description gives no indication of what the tool returns, whether it records or modifies state, or how to interpret results. For a tool with a single required parameter and many siblings, this is critically incomplete.

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 only parameter 'context' has minimal schema description ('Current context to match'). The tool description adds no extra meaning—e.g., what format the context should be, how matching works, or what constitutes 'relevance'. Schema coverage is 100% but the description is too thin to compensate.

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 'Check for relevant past learnings' is vague; 'check' is ambiguous and doesn't specify the action (e.g., retrieve, compare, alert). The tool name 'check_mistakes' suggests mistakes, but description says 'learnings', causing confusion. Sibling tools like 'recall_insights' and 'recall_reflections' have overlapping purpose, and no differentiation is provided.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'recall_insights' or 'recall_reflections'. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context to decide.

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