Log walk

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by stating 'Duration is stored as seconds' and mentioning the default exercise ID. However, it lacks details about return values, side effects, or error cases. The behavioral traits disclosed are minimal but consistent with a simple logging action.

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: first states the core purpose, second adds key details about exercise ID and unit conversion. No extraneous information, every sentence is purposeful.

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 no output schema and four parameters, the description covers the basic purpose and a key behavioral note (unit conversion). However, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., workout ID or status) and any side effects, leaving some gaps for a complete picture.

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 50% (two of four parameters have descriptions). The description adds context that minutes are converted to seconds and clarifies the exercise ID usage. It does not explain comment or startTime beyond schema, so it partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 it logs a walking workout, specifying the verb 'Log' and resource 'walking workout'. It mentions the exercise ID and duration, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ryot_log_workout or ryot_log_minimum_workout, though the specificity to walking implies 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 like the general logging tool ryot_log_workout. It does not mention exclusion criteria or prerequisites, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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