log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool does not affect workflow state and indicates the return value (True). It lacks details on potential side effects like log storage limits or visibility, but for a simple logging tool, it is sufficiently transparent.

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 extremely concise: a single key sentence followed by a brief args/returns section. Every part is essential, and the most important information (purpose and behavioral trait) is at the beginning.

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 the low complexity (1 parameter, no enums, simple boolean return), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, behavior, parameter meaning, and return value. It lacks information on error conditions or logging limitations, but overall it is adequate.

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 description provides basic semantics for the 'message' parameter: 'Log message to add to session history.' Given 0% schema coverage, it adds meaning beyond the schema's type string. However, it does not specify constraints like max length or acceptable formats, so it partially compensates.

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: 'Add a log entry to the current session without affecting workflow state.' The verb 'Add' and specific resource 'log entry' clearly define its function. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_session' which modify state.

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 implies usage context by emphasizing 'without affecting workflow state,' guiding agents to use it for logging without side effects. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'history' for retrieval.

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