acc_log_missed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context by explaining this is a recall signal that keeps ACC honest, but it does not detail persistence, side effects, or repeatability. It's not misleading, but more transparency about what 'logging' entails would be better.

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 only three sentences with the action front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second gives the usage trigger, and the third explains its purpose. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple 2-parameter logging tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, trigger, and context. It explains the 'missed-conflict' concept and why the ACC monitor needs this signal. It doesn't mention return values, but that is unnecessary for a log action.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (domain and description) with clear explanations and examples, covering 100% of them. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 action (log a missed-conflict) and the specific resource (ACC monitor). It distinguishes itself from automatic detectors by explicitly targeting conflicts they didn't flag. This makes its purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 provides a use condition: 'Use when you (or the user) catches a conflict type that the automatic detectors did not flag.' This gives clear situational guidance and implies not to use it for already-flagged conflicts, even though no alternative tool is named.

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