cos_backtrack_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It provides valuable context: return fields, advisory thresholds (≥3/≥5 backtracks), the dependency of suggested_action on root_cause, and per-cause session counts. It does not mention side effects or error conditions, but the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the primary action, lists the return object, then uses three short sentences to explain each return field's meaning. Every sentence adds information without 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?

The description covers key behavioral logic (thresholds, conditional suggested_action, session-scoped summary) and return values, but it omits usage context and parameter semantics for a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations. It is adequate for basic invocation but incomplete for nuanced handling.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for ten undocumented parameters, but it only clarifies root_cause ('when root_cause is supplied') and indirectly session_id ('this session'). Most parameters (reason, from_formula, to_formula, hypothesis, etc.) remain unexplained, leaving a significant gap.

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 ('Record a backtrack event') and identifies the specific resource type. It distinguishes itself from siblings by the term 'backtrack event,' though it does not explicitly contrast with other logging/query 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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like cos_observation_record or cos_log_query. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'Record a backtrack event,' with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references.

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