Work log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by listing which operations are journaled and stating read-only operations are never journaled. It adds useful behavioral context: entries are newest-first, carry change tags when a change is active, and can be scoped to one change. It does not detail pagination or exact outcome fields, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 dense but well-organized: it front-loads the core purpose, then lists journaled operations, then gives usage guidance and filter hints. Every sentence earns its place, and the sibling distinction is included without padding.

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 read-only log tool with no output schema, the description covers what is logged, the ordering, the change-tag behavior, and when to use it. It does not describe the exact output shape or pagination behavior, but the limit parameter and the list of fields (timestamp, paths, detail, outcome) give an agent enough to call it correctly.

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 five parameters. The description adds a little context by mentioning filters (since, path, change) and explaining the change tag scoping, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('automatic activity journal'), enumerates exactly which operations are journaled, and distinguishes itself from recall by noting the log is automatic while recall reads deliberate notes. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like recall and change_status.

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 explicitly says to call it at the start of a session to recover what happened in previous chats, and explicitly names recall as the alternative for deliberate notes. It also clarifies that read-only operations are never journaled, which helps an agent decide when not to use it.

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