log_watering

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds behavior details: the date defaults to today if omitted, and amount accepts free-form memos. It does not disclose potential side effects like updating plant status or require an existing plant, but it conveys the core behavior.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences, each adding useful information. No redundant or filler content.

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 an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, key parameters, and default behavior. It omits any side effects or error conditions, but the tool is straightforward and the output schema covers return values.

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 explains the watered_on parameter default and the amount parameter format ('흠뻑', '200ml'), but leaves the required name parameter unexplained. With 0% schema coverage, this partial compensation is helpful but incomplete.

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 tool logs watering events with a specific verb ('records') and resource (watering). It is clear but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like log_note, though the domain is specific 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?

The description implies the usage context (logging watering) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives. It mentions behavioral details like the default date but not any exclusions or prerequisites.

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