record_open_thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Record... for next instance to explore', omitting behavioral traits like side effects, persistence guarantees, auth requirements, or whether the record can be overwritten.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second provides a critical usage tip. Excellent structure.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It explains the 'what' and 'why' but omits return value, idempotency, lifecycle, and constraints, leaving the agent with significant unknowns for a data-recording tool.

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 coverage is 67% with decent descriptions for 'question' and 'context'. The description adds 'Pass questions, not conclusions' which reinforces parameter use but does not enrich the schema's existing definitions. Baseline score is appropriate.

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 verb 'Record' and the resource 'unresolved question', with the explicit purpose 'for the next instance to explore'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'record_insight' by emphasizing questions over conclusions.

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 instruction 'Pass questions, not conclusions' provides implicit guidance on when to use (for open questions) and what to avoid. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references but offers useful context.

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