insanitii_phase3_objective_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Run the checklist' without indicating side effects, whether it is read-only, how it behaves with the include_dialogs parameter, or what the output schema contains. The output schema exists but is not described, leaving agents uninformed about the tool's effects and return format.

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 very short, consisting of one sentence plus a KB reference and an example call. This is appropriately concise for a simple report tool, and the example provides a clear invocation pattern. However, the structure could be improved by integrating the parameter explanation and usage context, making it slightly under-specified.

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 complexity of the environment with numerous insanitii report tools, this description is incomplete. It does not explain what the checklist entails, when to run it, or how it differs from other phase reports. The output schema is present but unexplained, and the parameter is undocumented. An agent would struggle to decide when to invoke this tool and how to set include_dialogs 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter include_dialogs has no description in the schema. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, providing no additional meaning beyond the raw type (boolean) and default (true). This is a significant gap because agents cannot understand what 'include_dialogs' controls.

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 clearly states the verb 'Run' and the resource 'Insanitii Phase 3 objective-loop readiness checklist,' which is specific and distinguishes it from other phase reports. However, it does not explicitly state what 'running' entails (e.g., generating a report) or what the output is, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's primary function.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings like insanitii_phase1_readiness_report or insanitii_phase3_pie_runtime_report. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this checklist is appropriate. The KB reference is not usage guidance.

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