omni_agentlog

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the responsibility. It does disclose that the tool writes an annotation to a log ring, but it does not explain ring-buffer retention/overwrite behavior or visibility of annotations. Adequate for a benign logging action, not rich.

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?

Two sentences front-load the action and include a relevant example. Every word adds value; no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter logging tool, the description gives the essential usage and example. Some gaps remain around level semantics and ring-buffer behavior, but they are unlikely to block correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the message field via an example but does not explain the level enum values or any default behavior. Required message is implied; optional level remains undocumented.

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 action (write) and resource (log ring), plus an example of what to write. It clearly identifies this as a custom annotation tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling log/notification 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?

It explicitly says to use this for marking phases of an agent run and provides a concrete example. Missing when-not-to-use or alternative routing, but the intended context is clear.

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