log_time

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one meaningful behavioral trait: 'This triggers a real-time notification showing time was logged.' However, it doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, or effects on task status, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences long and immediately states the core action. The second sentence adds a relevant side-effect without any unnecessary fluff. Every word contributes value and the structure is ideally front-loaded.

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 is simple with fully documented parameters, but it lacks usage guidance, output details, and deeper behavioral context. The description explains the notification side effect but doesn't cover when to use it or what the response contains. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 reflects adequate but incomplete context for an agent.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the schema handles the meaning of task_id, minutes, date, and notes. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states, meeting the baseline expectation.

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's function: 'Log time spent on a task.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making the primary purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'quick_log', which likely serves a similar quick-logging purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'quick_log' or 'start_working'. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given. Users are left to infer the appropriate use case from the tool name alone.

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