log_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool logs for audit purposes, which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, what permissions are needed, how logs are stored, or rate limits. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, though it at least hints at the audit context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a brief, structured parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which means return values don't need explanation), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and parameters, but lacks behavioral details like error handling or audit specifics, which holds it back from a perfect score.

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 adds meaning by explaining both parameters: 'action_type' as a category with examples (e.g., 'REASONING', 'TRADE_DECISION', 'ERROR') and 'details' as a description of the action. This clarifies semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail on format or constraints.

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 purpose: 'Logs an agent action or reasoning step for audit purposes.' It specifies the verb ('Logs') and resource ('agent action or reasoning step'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on audit logging rather than financial operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential logging siblings (none exist in the list), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 usage for audit logging of agent actions, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no similar logging tools among siblings, so no comparison is needed, but it lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., when not to log). This results in an implied usage score.

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