petpals.request_agent_completion_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the mechanism ('by adding a comment template') but doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., it likely creates a visible comment), required permissions, reversibility, or any impact on the ticket. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation-like action.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb and object ('Request a structured agent completion report'). Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy. This is an efficiently sized description.

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 placement in a petpals workflow with siblings like review_completion_report, reject_completion, and mark_verified, the description lacks workflow context. It doesn't explain the report lifecycle, when to request, or what happens after the request. With no output schema, the description is the only source for expected behavior, and it is insufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already provides basic descriptions for ticketId ('Ticket ID') and projectSlug ('Project slug'), and the tool description adds no extra parameter semantics. No additional guidance on formatting or relationships is given, matching the baseline.

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 tool's purpose: 'Request a structured agent completion report' with a specific mechanism ('by adding a comment template'). This distinguishes it from siblings like review_completion_report, which reviews instead of requests. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from related report tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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, prerequisites, or conditions. It offers no insight into the workflow (e.g., when a report should be requested) or circumstances where this tool is appropriate. Siblings like review_completion_report imply a later step, but the description doesn't clarify the usage context.

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