session_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions logging a session entry but does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, if it overwrites existing logs, permission requirements, or any side effects. For a write operation, this is insufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences with no waste. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose and key fields, the second adds usage timing. Front-loaded effectively. Every word earns its place.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage timing. It could mention that this creates a persistent record or how it relates to session history, but for a straightforward logging tool, it is nearly complete.

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%, and each parameter has a clear description. The description adds narrative context by grouping fields (worked_on, decisions, next_steps) but does not provide new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description explicitly states it logs a session entry with specific fields (worked on, decisions, next steps) and positions itself as the 'core log progress tool', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like quick_note or task_add.

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?

It says 'Run at the end of a working session', providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative uses or mention when not to use it. Among sibling tools, it is the only structured logging tool, so context is sufficient.

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