observe_tool_partial

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behaviors. It reveals 'No-op on unknown callId' but omits other traits like idempotency, state changes, or whether multiple partials are allowed. Insufficient for full transparency.

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?

Very short and to the point. The version number 'v2.1.0' is minor noise, but overall no wasted words. Could be slightly improved by removing the version.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and low complexity, the description captures core purpose and one key behavior. However, it lacks details on the effect of recording (e.g., logging, state update) and the role of 'reason', making it minimally complete.

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 has 0% description coverage and description adds no parameter explanations. 'callId' is hinted by the no-op note, but 'reason' is completely unexplained. Description fails to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool records a partial result (usable but incomplete). Distinguishes from observation siblings like observe_tool_error and observe_tool_complete through its specific purpose and no-op behavior.

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 explicit when to use vs. alternatives. The description implies use for partial results, but doesn't contrast with error/complete/cancel tools. The no-op note provides a condition for when it applies, but lacks alternative guidance.

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