add_fact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It explains parameters but does not disclose persistence characteristics, side effects, or return values. The existence of an output schema is not acknowledged.

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 informative with a structured Args section, but it is somewhat verbose. Every sentence adds value, but brevity could be improved without losing clarity.

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 logging tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, the description covers purpose and parameter usage well. However, it does not describe the output schema (which exists), leaving a gap in completeness.

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%, but the description provides detailed explanations for all 6 parameters (e.g., 'claim: the factual statement (one sentence)', 'file: source file path relative to repo root'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 ('Record a structured fact'), the resource ('about this codebase'), and the purpose ('so the next agent doesn't have to re-verify it'). It distinguishes from siblings like add_decision and add_gotcha by emphasizing facts that are verified.

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 after verification ('fact you just verified') but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or how it compares to alternatives. No direct contrast with siblings.

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