OKF: Seed log.md

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

It goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing exactly what is written, that an existing log.md is never overwritten, and that a log is written empty when there is no git history. These behaviors are consistent with readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false.

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 lead sentence states the purpose, and every subsequent sentence adds necessary behavioral, scoping, or prerequisite detail. There is no filler, ambiguity, or repeated schema content.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers creation behavior, overwrite protection, folder scoping, the git-backing prerequisite, and the empty-history edge case. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents folder's role and default at 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nuance about subtree-scoped commits versus whole-vault history, but it does not introduce significant new parameter-level meaning.

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 opens with 'Seed a reserved OKF log.md change history from git history', naming a specific action and artifact. It then explains the newest-first format and folder scoping, which distinguishes it from generic write/edit tools and sibling OKF transforms like okf_generate_index.

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 gives concrete invocation context: folder selects write location and content scope, the bundle root seeds whole-vault history, and a git-backed vault is required. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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