log_step

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the append behavior, the rejection condition when failed=true and self_heal_strategy is missing, and the warning behavior for oversized context. It stops short of describing return values or the exact meaning of 'too large,' but the main behavioral traits are clear.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds meaningful behavioral information: append, rejection condition, and context-size warning. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 logging tool with 5 parameters, a strong schema, and no output schema, the description covers the essential operation and failure/warning behaviors. It is missing only minor details like the success/error return payload or what threshold triggers the size warning, which are not strictly required given the tool's simplicity.

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 80%, so the schema already documents the required parameters well. The description reinforces the self_heal_strategy constraint already present in the schema ('MANDATORY if failed=true') but adds little detail about action/result formatting or session_id usage. This is the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Appends') and a clear resource ('the Active Context'), making the tool's primary function immediately obvious. It also distinguishes this from loop-control siblings like 'resume_loop' and 'compact_memory' by focusing on writing a step record.

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 conditional usage context: any step that failed=true must include self_heal_strategy, and oversized context produces a warning. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the failure-requirement and warning behavior give the agent actionable guidance on when and how to invoke the tool.

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