Report a terminal command

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

It richly discloses behavior beyond the annotations: failures raise a streak and affect patience, 3+ failures trigger sympathy mode, successes heal patience, and exit codes 130/143 reset the streak without penalty. It also describes Phase 4 effects such as Git Master chain progression, force-push ending the chain, achievements, and Night Owl 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 front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and then expands into behavioral consequences. It is dense and lore-heavy, but most details are relevant to correct invocation and interpretation, with little pure 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the presence of annotations covering safety/mutation profile, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: exit-code handling, streak and patience effects, achievement triggers, and deployment wiring. An agent has enough information to invoke it appropriately.

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 both parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, notably that exit code 130/143 has special reset behavior and that the command string is never parsed and can omit secrets.

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 and resource: telling the companion how a shell command ended, including the raw exit code. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling femboy_report_git.

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 gives clear usage context by saying to wire this from a pi shell hook or the TUI launcher, and explains how command outcomes affect the companion. It does not explicitly state when to use this instead of femboy_report_git or other reporting siblings, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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