log_causality_point

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool records a decision, alternatives, and justification for future reference. It does not mention any side effects or requirements, but for a logging tool, the behavior is adequately 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 concise with a one-sentence purpose followed by a structured Args section. It front-loads the main action and avoids redundant or unnecessary 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?

The description covers the purpose and parameters completely. An output schema exists to document return values, so the description need not explain them. However, it does not address any prerequisites or common usage patterns, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Despite the input schema having 0% description coverage, the description provides a detailed docstring explaining each parameter (decision_made, alternatives_rejected, justification) with clear semantics beyond the schema's type information.

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 uses specific verbs ('anchor', 'record') and a clear resource ('project decision, alternatives, justification'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'time_leap_retrieval' which is about retrieval, while this tool is about logging.

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 for recording decisions with reasoning, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any 'when not to use' guidance. The sibling tool name suggests retrieval, but no direct comparison is made.

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