agent_session_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses logging to an active session, supports levels, and default behavior. However, it does not specify error handling (e.g., invalid session ID) or any side effects, which are minor gaps for a logging tool.

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 with three short, well-structured paragraphs. Every sentence adds information: purpose, usage context, and parameter details. No fluff or redundancy.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and parameters. It does not discuss return values or error scenarios, but these are not critical for this tool's function.

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%, and the description adds value by explaining the meanings of each log level ('info: General progress updates', etc.) beyond the enum definitions in the schema. This helps the agent choose the appropriate level.

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 'Log a message to an active agent session' and explains use cases (record progress, decisions, issues). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like agent_session_complete or agent_session_create, though the purpose is self-evident.

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 context for when to use the tool ('use this to record progress, decisions, or issues during a work session') and explains log levels with examples. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, but the provided context is sufficient for a simple logging tool.

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