log_interaction

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

The description states the tool logs data, which implies a write operation, and adds context ('for pattern analysis') but does not disclose side effects, persistence behavior, or whether it appends to existing history. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but provides only minimal behavioral insight.

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, front-loaded sentence that is concise and contains no wasted words. It efficiently states the action and purpose.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description gives the core action and rationale but does not explain return values, side effects, or any prerequisites. Given the overall simplicity, it is minimally adequate but leaves several contextual gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what is in the schema; it only mentions 'interaction' and 'conversation history' which loosely map to the parameters but add no new details.

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 an interaction to conversation history for pattern analysis, using a specific verb ('log') and resource ('interaction to conversation history'). It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on checking messages, resolving approvals, listing pending items, updating profiles, or getting risk summaries.

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 purpose implies usage when an interaction needs to be recorded for later analysis, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It is only minimally implied by the description.

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