martingale_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that recording a result yields the next bet amount, but does not detail side effects (e.g., internal state updates), error conditions (e.g., uninitialized session), or idempotency. For a simple mutation, it is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and result, making it highly efficient.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks important context such as the need for prior initialization, expected state, and the exact return format. For a betting system tool, users would benefit from knowing that the next bet amount is calculated according to Martingale progression.

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 coverage is 100% and the description reiterates the enum values ('win or loss'), which matches the schema. Additionally, the description adds context about the output ('get the next bet amount'), which the schema does not provide. This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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 explicitly states the verb ('record'), resource ('bet result'), and output ('next bet amount'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., martingale_init, martingale_reset) which have different purposes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage after initialization, there is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it. However, the context of the tool name and siblings makes it somewhat clear.

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