lore_log

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'create or update' but does not clarify idempotency, destructive potential (e.g., overwriting existing content), or required permissions (e.g., project access). The lack of detail on side effects or error conditions is a significant gap.

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 sentence, highly concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so brief that it omits necessary usage context, slightly reducing effectiveness.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 3 required) and absence of output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a 'log entry' represents, how the tool integrates with other lore tools, or what the return value (e.g., the created/updated node) contains.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is in the schema, remaining at the baseline score.

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 action ('Create or update') and the resource ('log entry node by path (kind: log)'), making it distinguishable from siblings that target different node kinds. However, it does not explicitly differentiate between log entries and other entry types (e.g., ADR, capture), which are separate tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., lore_capture, lore_adr). The description simply states what it does without context for appropriate usage or prerequisites.

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