protocol_log_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Log completion' and omits the fact that the tool supports 'skipped' and 'failed' statuses, potential side effects on session state, or any error conditions. The wording even contradicts the schema's status enum, which is a notable transparency gap.

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, grammatically complete sentence of six words. It is maximally concise with zero wasted words, front-loading the verb and resource. This is appropriate for a simple logging tool, though it sacrifices behavioral detail.

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 tool has three parameters, a status enum, and sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the role of the 'status' parameter, how this relates to protocol sessions, or when to use it over protocol_log_activity/violation. The absence of output schema could be acceptable, but the missing usage context and behavioral nuances leave clear gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema—it merely echoes the 'completion' idea found in the step parameter description, which is itself somewhat misleading relative to the status enum. No supplementary parameter context is provided.

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 specific verb ('Log') and resource ('protocol step'), making the primary action clear. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like protocol_log_activity and protocol_log_violation by focusing on 'step,' but the phrase 'completion' is slightly misleading given the status parameter allows 'skipped' and 'failed.'

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 does not mention protocol sessions, prerequisites, or any exclusions for when this tool is inappropriate. It simply states the action without contextual direction.

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