generate_learning_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: separating experiment-paid facts from engine-inferred ones, calling out withdrawn beliefs, and clarifying that it shows provenance rather than current state (implying a read-only operation).

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 with the main action front-loaded. The second sentence is long but packs in use cases and a parameter note without wasted words. It could be slightly more structured, but it remains efficient.

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 covers purpose, use cases, and key parameter behavior thoroughly. It does not specify the return format, but for a narration tool this is likely prose and not a critical omission.

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?

All 4 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for `since` by framing it as 'a diff' and tailoring it to standup/PR needs, going beyond the schema. Other parameters rely on schema, which is adequate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Narrate' and clearly defines the resource: what has been settled, in order, and how. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that 'the other read tools show the current state, this one shows how it was arrived at'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'to brief a human, to write a summary, or to re-orient yourself after a context reset'. It contrasts with alternatives ('other read tools') and gives a specific use case for `since` as a diff for standups or PR descriptions.

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