memkernel_log_execution

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

With no annotations, the description carries a heavy burden and delivers real behavioral detail: a non-zero exit_code opens a blocker that a later zero exit clears, and facts are tracked with changed values deprecated as assumptions. It does not state whether an active task/checkout/lease context is required, which is a notable gap given the leasing siblings.

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?

Three tight sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the consequential blocker/facts behavior following immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the mutating behavior (blocker open/clear, assumption deprecation) is well covered. What remains missing is prerequisite context — whether this requires an init'd task or an acquired lease — and any mention of the 'output' parameter.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it substantially does: it explains the exit_code semantics, tells you what belongs in facts (verified environment facts, e.g. python version) and how changing facts are treated. Only the 'output' parameter is left entirely undefined.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Log a tool/terminal execution'. A reader immediately knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling memory tools (memkernel_note, memkernel_append_decision), which is why it falls short of a 5.

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 (call after running a command) and the exit_code contract hints at when a blocker matters, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as memkernel_note for unverified observations. Implied usage only.

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