fork_log

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Append' matches. It adds the 'open fork' precondition, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose side effects beyond appending, permission requirements, or failure behavior. Given the low complexity and annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, core action front-loaded, and parameter meanings woven in naturally. No wasted words.

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 a simple append tool with no output schema and safe (non-destructive) annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and downstream usage. Missing details like the meaning of app_id/component or the exact format for type/ref are minor given the tool's simplicity. It's nearly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It clearly explains type, ref, and description, and indirectly implies fork_id via 'open fork'. However, app_id and component are left completely unexplained, leaving gaps for 2 of 6 parameters. The explanation adds value but is incomplete.

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 states a specific action ('Append one change entry') on a specific resource ('an open fork's log') and differentiates it from siblings like fork_merge/fork_delete by explaining that it records changes that those tools later tally. This clearly distinguishes it from related operations.

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 provides context on when this tool is used ('before fork_merge/fork_delete') and explains that entries are tallied downstream, implying the logical sequence. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the relationship is made clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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