log_episode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It indicates the tool logs to episodic memory and is retrievable later, but lacks details on whether events are immutable, overwritten, or any side effects. It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Four sentences, each earn their place: purpose, examples, retrievability, and prohibition/alternative. No filler. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Despite good purpose clarity, the description omits parameter details and return behavior. For a simple logging tool with no output schema and sparse parameter descriptions, an agent lacks sufficient information to correctly construct invocations.

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% and the description does not explain the parameters ('event', 'metadata', 'repo_path'). An agent receives no guidance on how to populate these fields beyond their types.

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 purpose: 'Log a structured episodic event to the episodic memory store.' It provides concrete examples ('bugs found, code explored, agent actions') and distinguishes from the sibling 'record_decision' by explicitly stating it's for recording 'what happened'.

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 explicitly states when to use ('Use to record what happened') and when not to use ('Do NOT use for architectural decisions') with a direct alternative ('use record_decision instead').

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