record_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation writes to memory and returns a memory ID, which is useful context. However, it omits details about failure conditions, persistence guarantees, or append-only semantics, leaving the behavioral disclosure minimal.

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 concise and well-structured, with a one-sentence summary followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every line serves a purpose with no 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 simplicity (2 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and return value. It lacks prerequisites such as an active session, but overall it is adequately complete for a basic event recorder.

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 compensates by defining both parameters: event_type with examples and content as 'The event content'. The event_type explanation adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, though content is minimally described.

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 states the tool's action, 'Record an event', and scopes it to 'the current session', with examples of event types (user_message, agent_response, observation). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling recording tools like record_hypothesis or record_decision.

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 generic session event logging via the event type examples, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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