dashclaw_assumption_record

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions staleness tracking and operator validation, but does not address side effects, authorization needs, or any destructive potential. Acceptable but could be more thorough.

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?

Concise two-sentence structure: first defines purpose with examples, second specifies when to call. No wasted words.

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 simple parameter count and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it records, why, and when. Minor gap: no mention of return value or confirmation, but not critical for this tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage. The description adds context by explaining the role of action_id (parent action) and assumption (belief), and notes basis as optional. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 records an assumption attached to an action, with specific examples like 'staging tests passed'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on unverified beliefs and linking to parent actions via action_id.

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 'Call right after the action that depends on the belief', providing clear timing guidance. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios where assumptions are already verified or provide alternatives, though the context implies it.

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