pleach_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It describes the output format ('ASCII git-style graph plus one record per session...') and ordering ('newest first'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the tool is read-only or whether it has any side effects, though the 'log' name and output description imply a safe listing operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core output, and every sentence adds value. It avoids repetition of schema details and is appropriately sized for the tool's scope.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately summarizes the return value: an ASCII graph plus records with fields listed. It covers the operation's breadth (listing sessions) and ordering. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is nearly complete; a minor gap is that it doesn't elaborate on what the graph looks like or what 'live' means in the records.

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 100%, so the parameters (cwd, limit, all_projects) are already fully documented. The description only adds 'newest first' which reinforces the limit ordering but doesn't explain parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 produces an ASCII git-style session branch graph and per-session records, with the instruction 'Start here to see what branches exist.' This gives a specific verb and resource, and positions it as the overview tool among siblings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from pleach_branch or pleach_status.

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 phrase 'Start here to see what branches exist' provides clear context for when to use this tool: as an entry point for exploring sessions. It implies a first-stop purpose but doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternative tools explicitly, which separates it from a 5.

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