record_observation

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the action (record) and triggers, implying a write operation, but omits details about side effects, persistence, idempotency, or any return value. This is a moderate gap, not as severe as missing triggers but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences: first states the purpose, second lists the trigger conditions. Every sentence is necessary and directly useful; there is no filler or 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?

For a simple logging tool with six parameters fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description provides the essential 'when to use' context. However, it does not mention that recorded observations can be retrieved later (via get_pending_observations), nor any potential side effects or limitations, leaving minor gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not enhancing. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 '记录' (record) and resource '错误观察或用户纠正事件' (error observation or user correction event), specifying the tool's purpose. It differentiates from siblings like capture_conversation_signals by focusing on errors/corrections, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicitly lists three trigger scenarios (tool execution failure, test failure, user correction), providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or alternative tools, missing the full guidance for selection.

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