research_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile, but the description adds almost no behavioral context: it doesn't say the entry is preserved/immutable, whether it is tied to a run, or what side effects occur. The entry-type taxonomy is the only value added beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumerated entry types are the payload. It is efficient, though terse to the point of under-specification.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no enums, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits expected values for 'type', the meaning of optional gap/outcome/runId, and any confirmation of persistence behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it never maps to the parameters. It hints at categories relevant to 'type', 'gap', and 'outcome' but does not explain required ids (projectId, runId, message) or the message/gap/outcome relationship, leaving most of 6 params undocumented in both places.

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 gives a specific verb ('Record') and enumerates the kinds of entries the log accepts (search, failed attempt, unresolved gap, alternative explanation, next step). This clearly identifies it as an append-only research process log, distinguishing it from propose/review siblings. No explicit sibling routing, so it falls short of 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as review_record or passage_add, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The list of recordable categories implies usage but does not guide the agent's selection decision.

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