Judge whether a situation belongs in the Decision Log

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return structure (should_log, reason, entry_template) and behavior when should_log is true. It does not cover auth or side effects, but the tool appears non-destructive and the description provides sufficient behavioral context for an agent.

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 paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and behavior. It is front-loaded with the main action. While it could be broken into clearer sections, there is minimal wasted text.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the return object but does not detail how the conditions interact, what values are valid for reason, or provide a complete example. The agent would need additional context to use this tool effectively.

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?

The input schema has 5 boolean parameters with 0% description coverage. The description lists all parameter names and explains they are conditions to 'set whichever apply', adding some meaning. However, it does not provide detailed semantics for each parameter, so the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 states the tool's function: to encode decision-log rules and judge if a situation belongs in the Decision Log. It lists specific conditions and outputs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like evaluate_gate or next_procedure.

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 implicitly gives usage guidance by listing the conditions and noting that a decision confined to one session does not need an entry. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use it beyond that one condition.

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