ketan_observe_belief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explains the contradiction-detection mechanism, which adds context, but it does not state whether the operation is reversible, how conflicts are handled (e.g., error vs. warning), or any persistence semantics. This is a partial disclosure.

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 efficiently structured: a concise opening sentence, a helpful explanatory second sentence with an example, and a clear bullet-style Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan.

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 tool with four parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, parameters, and basic behavioral context (contradiction detection). It omits explicit usage guidelines and details on how contradictions are surfaced, but the output schema likely handles return values. Overall, it is nearly complete for this 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?

The description's Args section provides thorough explanations for all four parameters (subject, predicate, value, confidence) with examples, compensating fully for the 0% schema description coverage. This goes beyond the raw schema, which only lists types and defaults.

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 a factual observation into the Epistemic Belief Engine, with a specific verb ('Record') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ketan_list_beliefs by focusing on the act of recording rather than querying.

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 implies usage for recording observations to detect contradictions but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools such as ketan_check_invariant or ketan_list_beliefs are not referenced, so guidance is only implicit.

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