file_firmware_report

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

The description discloses external-write behavior, gating via KVM_PILOT_MCP_ALLOW_EXTERNAL_WRITE and approval, dry-run preview, and graceful degradation when gh is missing/unauthenticated. These details go well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and provide actionable context. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with each sentence contributing value. The CLI twin reference and issue numbers add some noise, but overall it is efficient and logically structured.

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?

The description covers core behavior, external-write gating, dry-run, and failure modes, which is useful for a complex tool. However, since there is no output schema, it does not explain the return structure beyond a mentioned 'result' and 'filed=false reason.' The lack of parameter documentation leaves notable gaps, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, yet the description only explains dry_run. The other four parameters (repo, source, confirm, profile) are not described. Even confirm is only obliquely tied to 'per-invocation approval.' This is insufficient for an agent to correctly set these parameters.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'File the device's firmware-currency report as a GitHub issue when the registry is behind.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling firmware_check (which only checks) and specifies the condition for action.

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 states the trigger condition explicitly ('when the registry is behind') and notes that a current registry results in 'nothing to file.' It also recommends dry_run=true for previews. However, it does not explicitly name firmware_check as the read-only alternative, so exclusions are implied rather than fully spelled out.

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