Godette

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions starting logging and retrieving logs later, but doesn't address critical aspects like whether this affects performance, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens if logging is already active. For a tool that presumably modifies runtime behavior, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences with zero waste—each sentence provides essential information (starting logging and how to retrieve results). It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and workflow but lacks details on behavioral impact, error conditions, or output expectations, which are important for a tool that modifies runtime state.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'node_path' format is expected or clarify 'recursive' implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 ('Start logging signal emissions') and target ('on a node and its children'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'trace_signal_chain' or 'get_signal_log', which appear related to signal monitoring.

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 by mentioning 'After starting, call get_signal_log to retrieve captured signals,' which suggests a workflow context. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trace_signal_chain' or when not to use it (e.g., performance considerations).

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