wiki_append_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of exposing behavior. It does state that the operation appends to a log file under today's date group, implying non-destructive modification. However, it omits details such as whether the file is created if missing, how existing entries are formatted, or any permission requirements, which would be valuable for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no padding. Every word adds meaning, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple append operation, the description covers the core action and destination. Given an output schema exists, return values are not required. However, it lacks context about edge cases (file creation, date formatting) and parameter specifics, leaving some room for misinterpretation.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must clarify the parameters. While the names 'agent_id', 'action', and 'detail' are self-explanatory to some degree, the description neither explicitly maps them to the append operation nor explains any constraints or formats. This is a clear gap given the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Append' and names the exact resource 'agent's log.md', with the additional detail 'today's date group'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wiki_write_concept or wiki_search, leaving no doubt about its function.

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 its alternatives. It doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like wiki_write_concept, so an agent has no explicit basis for choosing this tool over others.

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