log_command_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool logs usage, implying a write operation, but does not disclose critical traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, idempotency, or what happens to the logged data (e.g., storage location, persistence). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured breakdown of args with clear examples. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, which are notable gaps for a logging tool.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose with examples (e.g., command: '/commit', category: 'git', context: free-text note), clarifying their roles and usage. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't cover all possible nuances like format 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 specific action ('Log one AI command usage') with the resource ('AI command'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_command_tool (deletion), get_history_tool (retrieval), get_stats_tool (analytics), and search_commands_tool (search). The verb 'Log' is precise and differentiates its purpose from other operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_history_tool or search_commands_tool. It lacks explicit when/when-not statements or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone without contextual boundaries.

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