choose_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that calling this tool records the declared strategy and that this improves regret analysis, which would otherwise infer the path from tool activity. It does not mention idempotency, overwrite behavior, or persistence, but for a simple declaration tool the key effect is conveyed.

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, front-loads the core action, and uses the second sentence to explain the benefit. There is no fluff or repetition of schema information, and every clause earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the main parameter semantics, and the downstream effect on regret analysis. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though a slightly more explicit statement about when to call it would make it fully self-contained.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning to the parameters. It does this by explaining that 'strategy' can be a suggested one like 'test-first' or a custom one, and that 'steps' belong to a custom strategy. This gives useful semantic context beyond the bare schema titles, though it could be more explicit about the exact role of 'steps'.

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 a specific verb ('Declare') and a clear resource ('the strategy you are following'), with a concrete example ('test-first'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like record_outcome or search_experience by its intent: declaring an intentional strategy rather than recording outcomes or exploring data.

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 the tool: whenever you are following a strategy and want to improve regret analysis. It also contrasts with the default behavior of inferring the path from tool activity. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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