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. It discloses deprecation and planned removal, but does not describe any other behavioral traits (e.g., what happens when called, side effects, or permissions). The deprecation status itself is a key behavioral disclosure.

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 very concise and front-loaded with the critical deprecation note. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no wasted text. It efficiently communicates the key message.

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 deprecated tool, the description is sufficiently complete in telling agents to avoid it. However, it lacks information about the original purpose of log_work, which might be relevant for understanding legacy workflows. Given the deprecation, this is a minor gap.

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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 focuses on deprecation and instructs not to use the tool, but does not clearly state what the tool originally did. It mentions trivial changes should skip the intent workflow, but the tool's function is implied rather than explicitly described.

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 explicitly states 'Do not call this tool' and provides context for when it is unnecessary (trivial changes). It gives clear guidance to avoid using it, but does not explain when alternatives like other tools should be used.

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