Harbor Crew Cross-Chain Report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a meaningful safety trait (read-only, no payment initiated) which matters given the paid sibling. However, it says nothing about auth requirements, why the tool takes zero inputs, or which report is being read, leaving real behavioral gaps.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is read and closed with the safety-critical constraint. No filler.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the enumerated return fields (price, networks, batch size, payment destination) usefully describe the payload, and the read-only guarantee is stated. The remaining gap is the unexplained absence of any parameter identifying which cross-chain report is being read.

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 schema is empty, so there are no parameters to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds field-level meaning by naming the four values the caller should expect, which partly compensates for the absent output schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (read) and enumerates the exact resource fields returned (price, supported networks, batch size, payment destination) for a cross-chain report. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling submit_paid_cross_chain_report by noting it never initiates a payment, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 closing clause 'never initiates a payment' implies this is the inspect-before-you-pay step relative to submit_paid_cross_chain_report, but the description never states when to call it, what prerequisites exist, or that submitting should follow it. Usage is left to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden: it does declare the read-only nature and explicitly disclaims claiming/submitting work, and it sketches the return payload (instructions, submission links, Harbor Points). It omits pagination, rate limits, auth requirements, and how 'open' is determined.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the read scope followed by what is returned and explicitly not done. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

For a two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, read-only safety, return contents, and the negative scope. Missing only pagination/volume guidance, which is minor here.

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 both optional parameters (poolId, taskId) are fully documented in the schema, including the scoping behavior. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that baseline.

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 (Read) and resource (open WorkMap community tasks and work pools), so an agent can tell what it does. The siblings (cross-chain report quote/submit) are in an unrelated domain, so no sibling differentiation is needed.

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 clause 'it does not claim or submit work' implicitly tells the agent when this tool is and isn't appropriate, which is useful. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when-to-use conditions or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it well: it explicitly says it only submits a receipt/signature for verification, never pays, moves funds, approves a contract, or signs, and that payment is direct to the operator. This eliminates the main ambiguity (does calling this spend money?) for a payment-adjacent tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the redeem action and its precondition, followed by the safety disclaimer. The middle sentence is long but every clause (never pays/moves/approves/signs) earns its place for a money-adjacent tool.

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 5-param, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers preconditions, safety, and payment mechanics. It does not state what the redeemed report contains or what a failed verification yields, which is a minor gap absent an output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five params, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating the exact price (0.02) and asset set, which contextualizes paymentRailId, and by describing the signature's binding scope.

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 verb (redeem) and resource (report) and pins the precise precondition: the user has manually paid and signed. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling get_cross_chain_report_quote, which prices rather than submits.

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?

It clearly states the conditions under which this tool applies (after manual payment and manual signing), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It stops short of explicitly naming the quote sibling as the preceding step, so routing to alternatives is implied rather than stated.

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