log_interaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that omitting thinking_seconds records a zero-duration ping for timestamp updates. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't discuss idempotency or data persistence.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words. It is highly concise.

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 (2 optional parameters, no required fields) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and usage. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 both parameters described. The description adds value by explaining the effect of providing or omitting thinking_seconds, which is not apparent from the schema alone.

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 tool's purpose: 'Log an agent interaction (turn) within the session.' It uses a specific verb ('Log') and resource ('agent interaction'), and the context of sibling tools (get_plan_usage, get_session_stats, etc.) distinguishes it well.

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 explicitly says 'Call this after each agent turn' and explains the fallback behavior when thinking_seconds is omitted. While it does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for a logging tool.

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