protocol_log_violation

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It only states that the tool logs, without disclosing whether it stores, validates, requires authentication, or returns any confirmation. The behavioral impact remains opaque.

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?

A single, compact sentence conveys the essential purpose. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with no filler.

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?

While the schema fully documents parameters, the description omits contextual details such as how log entries are stored, whether a protocol session must be active, and what callers should expect as a result. The absence of an output schema and annotations makes this minimal description insufficient for confident 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for every parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema; it simply restates the tool's purpose.

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 specifies the verb 'log' and the resource 'protocol violation or compliance issue', making it distinct from sibling logging tools like protocol_log_step and protocol_log_activity which target different event types.

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 implies use when a violation occurs, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternative logging tools such as protocol_log_activity, nor does it mention prerequisites like an active session.

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