log_development

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a development entry is logged, implying a mutating operation, but gives no details about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or whether it appends to a file. The schema lists parameters, but the description does not clarify behavior such as whether previous entries are overwritten or if authorization is required.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and has no redundant wording. However, the acronym 'WBSO' is unexplained, which slightly reduces clarity, but the overall structure is efficient and appropriate for a tool description.

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 tool has 10 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, what constitutes a valid entry, or how this tool relates to siblings like log_time or log_research. The complexity of the input schema and the absence of an output schema call for more detail about the tool's workflow and outcomes.

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 100%, meaning every parameter (hours, branch, commits, etc.) is already described in the schema. The description 'Log a development entry' adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema, merely indicating that the entry is development-related. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation burden.

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 'Log a development entry to WBSO documentation' clearly identifies the action (log), the resource (development entry, WBSO documentation), and implies a specific domain. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like log_research and log_time by focusing on 'development' rather than research or time tracking. However, it does not explain what WBSO documentation is, which could confuse agents unfamiliar with the term.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools like log_research or log_time for differentiation. Usage context is only implied by the term 'development entry', which is insufficient for an agent to decide appropriately.

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