log_weekly_action

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 only states 'log' which implies creation but does not disclose side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error conditions. Minimal behavioral context.

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 with 14 words, conveying purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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?

The tool has 4 parameters with full schema coverage, but no output schema. The description does not mention return values, errors, or pagination. Given the simplicity of a logging action, it is adequate but could state that it returns a confirmation or record ID.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters (action, category, principle, impact). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score.

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 logs a weekly action item for tracking consistent effort, referencing Napoleon Hill. It distinguishes from siblings (e.g., add_journal_entry, log_interview) by specifying weekly tracking, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'log' tools.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., add_idea, log_interview). There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations for daily vs. weekly tracking.

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