dashclaw_record

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

Without annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It states the tool records an action but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether it is irreversible, requires permissions, handles duplicates, or provides feedback). No contradictions since annotations are absent, but behavioral details are scant.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 15 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description provides general context but does not explain how parameters interplay, typical usage patterns, or what the tool returns upon success. The schema descriptions fill many gaps, but the tool's description could be more complete for complex auditing scenarios.

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% with each parameter well-documented in the input schema. The tool's description adds no extra semantic value beyond stating the overall purpose (recording actions). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already explains the parameters adequately.

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 explicitly states 'Record a governed action in DashClaw's audit trail' and provides examples ('log significant decisions, completed tasks, or notable outcomes'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like dashclaw_decisions_recent (list) or dashclaw_session_start by focusing on recording actions.

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 advises when to use the tool ('Use this to log significant decisions, completed tasks, or notable outcomes. Every important action the agent takes should be recorded'). It implies usage context for governance but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, though the specificity is sufficient.

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