tracking_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the call does not alter tracking progression (a non-state-changing append), but omits any auth/permission requirements or rate-limit 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core action and its non-mutating constraint come first and nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the tool is simple. However, the missing differentiation from tracking_error and the undocumented session_id leave gaps for an agent choosing among 12 siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It supplies the level enum values (info | warn | error) that the schema lacks and clarifies 'message' as a log entry, but says nothing about session_id's role.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ajoute une entree de log') and names the allowed levels, so the agent knows it appends a log entry. It hints at scope with 'sans modifier la progression', but never names a sibling, leaving the overlap with tracking_error unresolved.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. The phrase 'sans modifier la progression' describes a behavioral property rather than telling the agent when to pick this over tracking_error or tracking_update.

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