report_narrative

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add important behavioral context: the feedback is 'Stored for later analysis' and is 'SILENT/background — don't surface it to the user.' However, it does not disclose return behavior, failure modes, or validation effects, so transparency is incomplete.

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. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, usage condition, example, optional parameter detail, contrast with sibling, and silent/background behavior. No 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it covers purpose, usage, steps context, storage, and user-facing behavior. The main gaps are the unexplained `session_id` and the lack of any return/error information, but the tool's core context is well covered.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain `steps` in useful detail (ordered calls, shape of each element) and implies `text` is the feedback content. But `session_id` is never mentioned, leaving one parameter semantically unexplained.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Leave OPEN-ENDED feedback about a whole run.' It clearly distinguishes this from per-call scoring by explicitly referencing the sibling report_outcome and stating it does not replace those scores.

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 exactly when to use the tool: 'when a per-call score isn't enough,' and provides a concrete example. It also tells the agent not to use it as a replacement for report_outcome, giving an explicit alternative.

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