write_sitrep

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'prepare' which implies a mutation or creation action, but does not state whether it writes state, requires permissions, is reversible, or has side effects. The agent is left without a clear picture of the tool's operational behavior.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately terse, though the phrase 'evidence-bound' is somewhat cryptic. Structurally it is efficient, but the brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.

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 a 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema that is not referenced, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a SITREP route is, how the parameters affect the output, what constitutes 'evidence-bound,' or what the tool returns. For a tool with three parameters and a required one, this is far from adequate.

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 0% and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (project_material, quality, reasoning_effort) or their semantics. The agent must rely solely on the raw schema types and defaults, which is insufficient for correct invocation. The description adds no value beyond the 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?

The description states a specific action (prepare) on a specific resource (an evidence-bound SITREP route) and gives a temporal context (before Working begins). It conveys the core purpose clearly, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like prepare_task or plan_work. The term 'SITREP route' may be domain-specific but is unambiguous within the tool family.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as prepare_task or plan_work. The only hint is 'before Working begins,' which provides a temporal condition but no exclusion criteria or direct comparison. No alternatives are named, so an agent cannot easily route between this and similar preparation tools.

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