program_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by detailing what needs_pty means (TTY error, hang in pipe mode, TUI rendering) and setting the policy to record every first-encounter conclusion, including negatives. It also specifies notes content with an example. Missing details about behavior for existing records or persistence semantics, but it covers the essential behavioral traits.

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 concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. The first sentence establishes the primary purpose and the key parameter semantics; the second sentence adds an important usage directive and notes guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Considering the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite thorough. It explains the purpose, the meaning of the boolean, the recording policy, and what to include in notes. It doesn't address what happens if a record already exists (whether it updates or errors), which is a minor gap for a registry tool, but overall it is adequate for the intended use.

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%, providing baseline descriptions for all parameters. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies the semantic meaning of needs_pty with concrete detection criteria, explains that negatives should also be recorded, and gives an example for notes. This goes beyond the baseline of 3.

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 with a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('confirmed program fact in the persistent registry'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like program_query by focusing on recording rather than querying. It also narrows the scope to needs_pty, making it highly specific.

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 on when to use the tool: after observing program behavior and confirming a first-encounter conclusion, including negatives. It does not explicitly name alternatives like program_query or state when not to use it, but the instructions are sufficiently clear for the intended use case.

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