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

No annotations are present, so the description carries that burden. It discloses that warnings are advisory, that it returns them immediately, and that the tool is free. It does not explicitly state whether it modifies state, but 'Report' strongly implies a non-destructive telemetry operation.

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 relatively long, but it front-loads the core purpose and returns warnings. It contains a minor typo (repeated 'context_window') and the counter list is a bit sprawling, but every sentence earns its place by clarifying functionality, inputs, or behavior.

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 tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description explains that the return value is warnings (loop/budget), which is the key behavior. It does not detail the exact structure of the step object beyond the schema's 'action/tool + inputs', but that is already in the schema. It provides enough to call the tool correctly.

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 75% (3 of 4 params have descriptions). The description adds significant value by enumerating the expected fields inside the 'counters' object (step, max_steps, tokens_used, token_budget, etc.), which the schema only vaguely describes as 'running counters'. It does not mention loop_threshold, but the schema covers it.

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 ('Report') and resource ('ONE step of a live run') and clarifies the outcome (warnings). It distinguishes itself from siblings like detect_loop and budget_guard by focusing on step-by-step reporting during a live run.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for reporting a step during a live run and receiving advisory warnings to self-correct. It implies when to use it (mid-run) but does not explicitly point to alternatives or exclusions, though the context is strong enough.

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