log_work

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It confirms the operation is a mutation via 'Log', but says nothing about side effects, whether entries are appended to a history, whether invalid commit_hash or agenda_item_id references fail, or any permission requirements. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence with the verb front-loaded and no wasted clauses. It is efficient, though 'after completing something' is vague filler that contributes little concrete 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?

Given 5 parameters, an enum, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits guidance on what the type values represent, what 'project' refers to, how commit_hash is used, and how agenda_item_id linking behaves — all information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 20% — only agenda_item_id is documented. The description does not compensate: it merely echoes the 'summary' concept and gives no meaning or format guidance for type, project, or commit_hash. Four of five parameters are effectively undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 names a specific verb ('Log') and a distinct resource ('work summary'), with a timing cue ('after completing something'). It clearly implies a write operation and is naturally distinguishable from the read-oriented sibling get_work_log, though it never explicitly differentiates itself or names an alternative.

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?

'After completing something' provides an implied trigger for when to use the tool. However, there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or mention of alternatives such as get_work_log for retrieval or add_agenda_item for agenda entries — the routing guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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