Log completed work

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'append' wording is consistent with a non-idempotent, non-destructive write. It adds useful context (timestamped, short, session-handoff purpose) but says nothing about where entries land, whether they are retrievable via recall, or whether repeated calls duplicate entries.

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 sentences, zero padding, with the action and its content shape front-loaded before the trigger condition. Every clause earns its place.

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 6-parameter write tool with no output schema and sparse schema descriptions, the definition covers purpose, trigger, and most content fields adequately. Gaps remain around `duration_min`, entry persistence/retrieval, and what the call returns, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly 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 only 17%, with just `summary` documented, so the description carries real weight here: it names files, commands, outcome, and next steps, mapping meaning onto four otherwise undocumented parameters. Only `duration_min` goes unmentioned, and no format or limit details (maxItems, enum values) are supplied.

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?

States a specific verb ('append') and resource ('work-log entry') and enumerates the entry contents (what changed, files, commands, outcome, next steps). It is clearly a write-to-log operation, though it never contrasts itself with the memory siblings (remember/recall/forget) that an agent might confuse it with.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance: 'Call this before ending a session so the next agent can resume without re-reading everything,' which tells the agent exactly when to reach for it and why. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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