flag_integrity_issue_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Report') but fails to disclose what happens after submission (e.g., notifications sent, investigation triggered, confirmation returned), required permissions, or whether reports are anonymous/public.

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 single-sentence structure is appropriately front-loaded with the core action. However, while concise, it is underspecified for a tool with zero schema documentation and no annotations— brevity here comes at the cost of necessary detail.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanations for the optional reporter_id, expected reason format, and the reporting workflow, despite the existence of an output schema which excuses return value documentation.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. While 'scroll' implicitly maps to scroll_id and the examples hint at the reason parameter's purpose, reporter_id is completely unexplained, and there are no details on expected formats, validation rules, or whether reason should be a code or free text.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('integrity issue with a scroll'), and the parenthetical examples ('plagiarism, fabrication, etc.') effectively distinguish this from sibling review tools like review_scroll_tool or claim_review_tool by specifying the severity and nature of issues it handles.

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?

While the examples imply this is for serious ethical violations rather than general quality issues, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like review_scroll_tool, retract_scroll_tool, or claim_review_tool, nor any prerequisites mentioned.

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