Tribal: Rate Retrieval Quality

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that feedback builds an eval dataset, that submission should be selective and only when signal is clear, and that incomplete feedback (missing trace_id) should not be submitted. This goes beyond basic requirements.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence, followed by explicit guidance. It is slightly long but each sentence is informative. It could be slightly more concise, but overall it is front-loaded and well-organized.

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 the tool has 7 parameters (4 required) and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, parameter roles, and behavioral expectations. It mentions that feedback forms an eval dataset, which is important context. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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% (all parameters described). The description adds context beyond the schema, such as explaining the purpose of embedding_profile_id (for lineage), explored_anchor_ids (anchors used), and notes (optional reasoning). It does not simply repeat schema descriptions but enriches them.

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: 'Record a quality signal about a retrieval session.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tribal_discover and tribal_explore by focusing on the combined retrieval session quality.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance (when Tribal's knowledge helped or failed), when-not-to-use (not for individual items), and criteria for positive/negative ratings. It also warns against fabricating trace_id and advises to be selective, making it clear how to use the tool correctly.

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