rate_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool records feedback, stores it locally in 'feedback.db', and mentions persistence ('survives DB rebuilds'). However, it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, or if there are any rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 highly concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and usage timing, while the second provides important behavioral context about storage and persistence. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words or redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains when to use the tool, what it does, and storage behavior. However, it doesn't describe what happens after feedback is recorded (e.g., how it affects future queries) or potential error conditions, leaving some gaps in full understanding.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter relationships or provide additional context about the hint or node_ids). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 with a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('Ariadne results'), specifying it's for logging feedback about result usefulness. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning when to call it ('after using query_chains or expand_node'), making the purpose distinct from those query/expansion tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this after using query_chains or expand_node to log feedback for future improvement.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool (after specific sibling operations) and its purpose (logging feedback), with no misleading or ambiguous statements about alternatives.

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