log_discovery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states that the tool logs a structured note and implies persistence for future agents, but it does not clarify side effects such as whether an existing note is updated, duplicated, or how the note becomes searchable. This is useful but incomplete for a write operation.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the captured value and the motivating benefit, making it easy for an agent 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 an 11-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential purpose and value proposition, but it omits expected return behavior, storage semantics, and how logged discoveries can later be found. The schema covers the input fields, but not these operational gaps.

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 100% description coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameters. It does echo 'impact' and 'recommendations', which map to schema fields, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema's own detailed parameter 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 names a specific action and resource: logging discoveries, gotchas, or TILs as structured notes. It clearly distinguishes this from generic note creation by emphasizing that it captures impact and recommendations and prevents future agents from re-discovering the same things.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever an agent or human learns something worth persisting for future work. It does not explicitly name alternatives like create_note or log_decision or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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