Write to Log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. The description correctly indicates a POST request, implying a mutation, but it does not disclose whether the message is appended as a single entry, queued, or subject to rate limits. It does not state response behavior (e.g., success status) or whether the operation is synchronous. This is a minimal disclosure with basic safety implied (non-destructive append).

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action ('Append a message') and the endpoint. No redundant content. Perfectly structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (4 parameters, one nested object, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or parameter usage. For a logging tool, the agent needs to know when to use 'json' vs 'message' and whether 'debug' and 'error' are mutually exclusive. The description fails to provide this context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the meaning or usage of the four parameters (json, debug, error, message). The description only mentions 'a message' but does not clarify which parameter to use for what purpose or how they interact. This is a significant gap for a tool with 0% coverage.

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 appends a message to the server log and specifies the HTTP endpoint (POST /sdapi/v1/log). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like sdnext_log (which may retrieve or manage logs) by its explicit action of writing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from potential similar write operations, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. For a log-writing tool, the usage context (e.g., debugging, server-side logging) is implied but not explicitly stated, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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