report_outcome

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 states the tool reports outcomes but doesn't explain what 'reporting' entails—whether it's a write operation, sends notifications, updates a database, or has side effects like triggering workflows. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While it may be too brief for completeness, it earns full marks for conciseness and structure as every word contributes directly to the tool's function.

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's complexity (reporting outcomes, which implies data mutation), no annotations, low schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which might cover return values), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand how to use this tool effectively.

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 input schema has 1 parameter (a nested object with 3 sub-parameters) and 0% schema description coverage, meaning schema descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Component ID', 'Outcome type'). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'component_id' refers to, how 'outcome' values affect the system, or what 'context' is used for. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Report a component outcome (used, removed, deprecated)', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'report' and resource 'component outcome', but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_outcome_report' or 'get_outcome_stats'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what reporting entails.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or compare it to siblings such as 'get_outcome_report' (which likely retrieves reports) or 'analyze_feedback' (which might involve outcomes). Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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