log_params

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'Log parameters to the current run' without explaining effects like overwriting, appending, or whether parameters are persisted across runs. No behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 very concise (6 words), but the brevity sacrifices informativeness. It is not front-loaded with critical details; it serves as a minimal label rather than a helpful explanation.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description lacks completeness. It fails to mention that a run must be active, whether params are appended or replaced, or any side effects. Important context is missing.

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% and describes 'params' as key-value pairs with acceptable types. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 action ('Log') and resource ('parameters') with destination ('current run'), making the purpose identifiable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like log_metrics or log_artifact, which could cause confusion.

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 like log_metrics or log_artifact. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must have an active run) or context for proper use.

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