thread_touch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: appending to chronicle/thread_touches.jsonl, which implies persistence and potential growth. It also states a negative (does not hide). It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but for a non-destructive logging action, these are less critical.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the core purpose and key constraint. The second adds two additional valuable facts (what it does not do and where it logs). Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description does not mention return values or error conditions. For a simple logging tool, this might be acceptable, but considering the complexity of the sibling set and lack of annotations, additional context about side effects (e.g., repeated touches) could improve completeness.

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 100%, and the schema descriptions are clear and sufficient. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 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 explicitly states the verb 'Record' and the resource 'that this instance has engaged with an open thread without resolving it.' It also clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve_thread by noting that touching does not hide the thread. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 the tool (when engaged but not resolved) and what it does not do (hide the thread), helping to differentiate from resolution tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance beyond the negative behavior.

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