protocol_log_activity

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action ('Log') without disclosing side effects, persistence, required permissions, or return behavior. This is minimal and leaves much unknown.

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 easy to parse. However, it is extremely sparse and could include more guidance without becoming verbose. It earns credit for brevity but not perfection.

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?

Given the existence of multiple logging siblings, the description lacks necessary context to differentiate usage. It does not explain what 'significant activity' means or how this tool relates to protocol_log_step/violation. The absence of an output schema or annotations amplifies the gap.

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%, with each parameter individually described. The description itself adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters relate or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb ('Log') and specifies a resource ('any significant activity or tool usage'). It is not a tautology, but it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like protocol_log_step and protocol_log_violation, which serve similar logging purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a broad logging function but does not state exclusions or contrast with sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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