Recurring pitfalls log

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: 'Writes a row' for store, 'Read-only' for list, and 'mark a pitfall resolved' for resolve. Annotations already indicate non-read-only, so description adds useful context without contradiction.

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 compact, using bullet points and bold for actions. Every sentence is informative and necessary. It is front-loaded with the overall purpose and efficiently covers all three actions.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers all actions, parameter requirements, distinguishes from sibling, and provides context on markdown body and importance score. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining per-action parameter requirements (e.g., 'title + body required for store') and providing an example for title, going beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it is a 'Multi-action log of recurring problems and their resolutions' and enumerates three distinct actions (store, list, resolve). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'decisions_log' by noting that one-off design choices should use that tool instead.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance for each action and differentiates from 'decisions_log' for one-off choices. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance for the overall tool but is otherwise strong.

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