record_reverse_evidence

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It mentions appending but omits important behaviors: file creation, idempotency, error handling, or permission requirements. Does not contradict annotations (none present).

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?

Single sentence, very concise. Front-loaded with action. However, brevity sacrifices essential detail, making it borderline insufficient despite good structure.

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?

With 6 parameters, 3 required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain the nature of the evidence record, semantics of each field, or expected behavior.

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 description must explain parameters. It only references taskId implicitly in the path. Category, signal, detail, refs, severity are unexplained, leaving agent to guess their meanings and formats.

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 action ('Append') and the specific resource (a record to a file path 'artifacts/tasks/<taskId>/runtime-evidence.jsonl'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by being uniquely about recording evidence.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_target or other siblings. Lacks context for conditionality or prerequisites.

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