log_mistake_autopsy

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It clearly states it writes to agent memory (a mutation) and the purpose of that write. It does not explain any side effects like overwriting existing entries, idempotency, or storage limits, but the scope is narrow and the description covers the essential behavior without contradicting any structured metadata.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and rationale. There is no filler or redundancy; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 straightforward logging tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent why and what to log, and the schema covers the specific fields. It omits only minor details like whether the log is immediately retrievable or how it integrates with memory search, but nothing critical for a correct call is missing.

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 100%, with all three parameters documented (mistake_summary, root_cause, prevention_rule). The description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides; it only reinforces the overall purpose. Per the calibration baseline, a high-coverage schema earns a 3 here.

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 a specific verb ('Logs'), a clear resource ('a bug, mistake, or trap encountered in code') and the intended outcome ('so the agent never repeats the same mistake'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like log_user_preference and get_agent_memory by focusing on mistake logging rather than preferences or generic memory retrieval.

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 when to use it (when encountering a mistake or trap) and explicitly states the goal of preventing recurrence. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer the right context without additional guidance.

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