append_log_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: entries are grouped under today's ISO 8601 date heading, newest first, and log.md is created if absent. It stops short of describing failure conditions (e.g., invalid directory), but the disclosed behaviors are relevant and non-obvious.

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 compact sentences, front-loading the primary action and adding only essential behavioral details. No filler or repetition.

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 tool is a simple append operation with a full input schema and an output schema (per context signals). The description covers core behaviors (date grouping, file creation) and doesn't need to explain return values due to the output schema. It could mention what happens on invalid paths, but that's not essential for the common case.

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 already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (path, action, description), and the tool description adds little beyond restating 'directory' for path. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not enrich parameter understanding further.

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 opens with 'Append a dated entry to the log.md file for a directory,' which clearly identifies the verb (append), resource (log.md), and scope (directory). This distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_log and other file operations like update_index.

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 clearly states the tool is for appending to a log file, making its usage context obvious. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for write operations.

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