log_finding

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states that findings are logged to local session notes but does not mention if the operation appends or overwrites, error behavior, or any side effects.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a bullet-list of arguments. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded. No extraneous information.

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 simple logging tool with 4 string parameters, the description adequately covers the parameters' meanings. However, it does not mention the return value (though an output schema exists but is not shown) or error handling, leaving some ambiguity about what the agent can expect after invocation.

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 provides clear, meaningful explanations for all four parameters (agent_id, category, content, context), including examples for category. It adds substantial value beyond the schema's bare titles.

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' and the resource 'finding' with examples of what qualifies as a finding (credential, secret, important file) and the destination (local session notes). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'save_writeup', which could be used for similar note-taking purposes.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'save_writeup' or 'list_credentials'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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