grid_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the append-only nature (entries cannot be modified or deleted) and that read returns entries in chronological order. It does not mention potential errors or permission requirements, but for a simple log tool these are minor gaps. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences: the first gives a concise overview ('Append-only audit log'), the second breaks down the two actions with precise verbs. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or fluff. The structure front-loads the key concept and presents the actions clearly.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a solid overall picture of the tool's purpose and operations. It covers the append and read behaviors well, but does not specify what append returns or the exact format of log entries in the response. Since there is no output schema, these details would be helpful but are not fatal gaps for a log tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does clarify that 'event + optional data' for append and that read retrieves for a grid (tying to gridId), and action is self-explanatory via the two subcommands. However, it does not fully explain the structure of data or gridId beyond the schema's basic type information, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 tool is an 'Append-only audit log for grid events' and defines the two specific actions: 'append: Write a new log entry (event + optional data)' and 'read: Retrieve all log entries for a grid in chronological order.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like grid_state and grid_plan by focusing on logging, not state or planning.

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 context that the tool is used for writing and reading grid audit logs, with explicit subcategories for append and read. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the append-only nature and chronological read imply the intended use cases. This is clear context without formal when/when-not guidance.

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