spider_record_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions adding to a corpus and being checked later, but it does not describe side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior, deduplication), input validation, return values, or error conditions. The description is too minimal for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, no wasted words, and immediately front-loads the action. It earns its place without any 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 the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, multiple siblings), the description lacks important context: it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing corpus), the format or structure of the one-line pattern, what the tool returns, or how it integrates with the sibling tools. It is insufficient for a developer to fully understand usage.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear Korean description. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: to distill and add bug patterns caught in the current round to a learning corpus as one-line patterns, to be checked first in the next round. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the restriction 'only actually caught ones' adds clarity.

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 when to use (after catching bugs in the round) but provides no guidance on when not to use or how this tool differs from siblings like spider_checklist, spider_signals, or spider_pull_corpus. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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