slog_add_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only implies a mutation via 'Add' and gives a hint about correlation IDs, but it does not disclose side effects, file modifications, API key usage, or whether an existing slog setup is required.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with zero wasted words. Although it is minimal, it includes the core action and the key differentiator (correlation IDs), making it concise rather than under-specified.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented api_key parameter, this description is too incomplete. An agent lacks information about prerequisites, side effects, how parameters are interpreted, and when this tool should be selected over sibling tools.

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 only 50%; the api_key parameter has no description in the schema, and the tool description adds no meaning for it. The description does not explain how directory or api_key are used, so an agent is left guessing about the api_key's purpose and relationship to the operation.

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 states a clear action and resource: adding contextual logging with correlation IDs. It is not a tautology and gives a specific distinguishing detail (correlation IDs), but it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from related siblings like log_correlate or slog_configure_transport.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. No typical scenarios, prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent without routing information.

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