Dream Audit Log

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It discloses that the tool appends to a log file (destructive in that it appends, but not destructive in a harmful sense). It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but the behavior is simple appending without other side effects.

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 concise but includes a complete list of event types, which might be redundant with the schema enum. However, it provides helpful context for each event type without being overly verbose.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and event types, and even connects it to the graph_unmerge tool for traceability. No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains the return behavior (just appending).

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?

Although the schema covers 100% of parameters, the description adds value by explaining the 'entity_resolved' event's significance for reconstructing merges and advising to 'Always include relevant names/IDs' for the data payload. This enriches the schema definitions.

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's purpose: 'Append a structured event to the dream process audit log'. It specifies the exact resource (logs/dream-audit.jsonl) and provides a comprehensive list of event types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like graph_merge or graph_unmerge.

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 instructs when to use the tool: 'Call this during the dream process'. It also explains the specific events to log, including a detailed purpose for 'entity_resolved'. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons to alternative tools.

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