cpu_transaction_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool writes configuration, directs output to the logfile, and has no read-back command. However, it does not specify persistence, error handling, or side effects like overwriting previous settings. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the tool's purpose and parameter association. The second provides critical usage guidance and a behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place, front-loading key information.

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?

The description covers the main action and a key usage pattern, but lacks details on default values, validation rules, or what happens on invalid inputs. For a two-parameter configuration tool with no output schema, it is minimally adequate but could be more complete by explaining parameter interactions beyond the given ordering hint.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by stating the dependency between 'logfile' and 'enabled', and clarifying the output destination. This helps an agent understand parameter relationships, though it does not elaborate on all enum values.

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 configures the CPU transaction log, a specific resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cpu_history' or 'cpu_step' by focusing on configuration of the transaction log, not execution or history. The addition 'there is no read-back command' further clarifies its write-only nature.

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 provides an explicit usage order: 'Set logfile then enabled=yes to start.' This gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like directly writing to memory or using other configuration tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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