log_checkin

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

There are no annotations to fall back on, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the act of logging. It does not mention whether it writes a new record, overwrites existing data, requires authentication, or what side effects occur. The parameter ranges are clarified, but that belongs to parameter semantics, not behavioral transparency.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean bullet list of arguments. Every line delivers necessary information with no filler or redundancy.

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 provides complete input semantics, which is essential for invocation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain what the tool returns or how success is confirmed. As a logging/write operation, this missing behavioral context leaves a gap for an agent to fully understand the tool's outcome.

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 descriptions for its properties, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's meaning and range: mood, energy, stress on 1..10 scales, sleep_hours as fractional hours, and note as optional free text. This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare types and required flags.

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 action: 'Log a morning (or moment-in-time) founder check-in.' It names the specific resource (founder check-in) and the verb (log). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like tempo_score, which might also involve mood tracking, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage context is implied by the phrase 'morning (or moment-in-time) founder check-in,' suggesting when to use it. But there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tools to prefer. No alternatives are mentioned, so it only earns a midpoint score for implied usage.

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