log_work

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

Adds useful context beyond annotations (none provided): 'git already has the diff' implies the tool is for metadata/context, not code changes. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a persistent write operation, auth requirements, or what happens on invocation. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the burden and only partially fulfills it.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. Every word earns its place, delivering the core purpose and a key design philosophy without 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?

For a simple logging tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and mindset but omits parameter details (especially commitSha and filesTouched) and any behavioral specifics. It's minimally viable but leaves gaps for optional parameters.

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 50% (intent and summary have descriptions; commitSha and filesTouched do not). The description adds guidance by stating to capture the WHY (intent) and open loops (likely in summary), and 'git already has the diff' hints that diff-related fields (commitSha/filesTouched) may be redundant. But it doesn't explain the un-documented parameters explicitly.

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 identifies the action ('Log a unit of work') and the resource (a unit of work), with context ('when you finish something meaningful'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'update_progress' or 'record_decision', but the resource and phrasing are distinct enough.

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?

Provides a clear usage context: use when you finish something meaningful. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use 'update_progress' or 'record_decision' instead.

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