log_reasoning

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates key traits: permanent storage, immutability, chaining of decisions, and a root hash receipt. These details help the agent understand the irreversible and security-sensitive nature of the action.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. The description is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects) and no output schema, the description does not explain the return value or output format. It mentions a 'root hash receipt' but lacks specifics about what the agent can expect as a response. The description is complete for understanding the action but incomplete for anticipating the tool's output.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it provides general context about the overall operation but not how each parameter affects behavior.

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 verb 'log', the resource 'AI agent reasoning trace', and the storage destination '0G Storage'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get, verify, history, audit) by focusing on writing/recording, not reading or verification.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist but are not mentioned. The description implies usage for logging reasoning, but does not specify when not to use it or compare with other tools.

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