context_log

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that entries are appended to shared state, returns id, and that changes without refs are recorded as CLAIMs for verification. Does not describe any destructive or permission-related 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?

Two paragraphs, relatively concise. First paragraph covers purpose and type details, second provides usage guidance. Could be more structured but no unnecessary sentences.

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?

Covers key aspects: purpose, types, refs usage, and behavioral guidance for changes. Lacks explanation of 'segment' parameter and does not detail output beyond returning id (output schema exists). Adequate for a logging tool in a context suite.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description explains 'type' (allowed values) and 'refs' (format and optionality), but 'segment' is left unexplained despite being required. Partially compensates for missing schema descriptions but not fully.

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 appends an entry to shared working state, specifies allowed types (decision, change, question, task, note), and mentions it returns the entry id. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like context_search or context_verify.

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?

Provides guidance to store WHAT/WHY not HOW, and notes that a 'change' is 'done' only when merged in git. Implicitly distinguishes from siblings but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria.

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