log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavioral details: it lists the five operations, distinguishes settable from gettable fields, notes that contest_counter is set-only, and specifies that last_record/all_records return ADIF. It does not mention error handling, side effects, or persistence, but it covers the core behavioral surface of the tool.

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 well-structured: the first sentence introduces the resource and lists operations, followed by two paragraphs grouping settable and gettable fields, and ends with return format. It is information-dense but not bloated. It could be slightly more compact by folding the field lists, but the structure aids comprehension.

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's complexity (multiple operations, many fields, no output schema), the description covers a lot but leaves gaps: it does not give exact syntax for calling operations (e.g., operation='get' with field='call'), does not state the return format for get or clear operations (only last_record/all_records mention ADIF), and does not explain behavior when setting a gettable-only field. These are important for correct invocation, so completeness is only partial.

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. It does so by explaining the operation values (get, set, clear, last_record, all_records), enumerating valid field names, and clarifying that contest_counter is set-only. This gives the agent meaning for the 'operation', 'field', and 'value' parameters beyond the bare schema, even though it does not explicitly map each parameter to a formal description.

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 manages 'Logbook (QSO / contest) fields' and enumerates operations (get, set, clear, last_record, all_records) and field categories (settable vs gettable). It is specific about the resource and actions, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like flmsg or fldigi_call that might also touch logging, so it misses a point for explicit sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. It lists operations and fields but does not explain scenarios where log is preferred or not appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and field lists, which is insufficient given the many sibling tools.

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