compat_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the report's contents (pass rate, failing labels, next-step guidance). However it omits whether the operation is read-only, what happens when no tests have been recorded, and any workspace-scoping behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste; the action and output artifact are front-loaded and the parenthetical enumerates report contents efficiently.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description summarizes the report well. It still leaves the workspace parameter unexplained and gives no precondition about tests having been recorded, which is a gap for a tool with no annotations.

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% and the single required 'workspace' parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The phrase 'all recorded app tests' never clarifies whether the aggregation is scoped to the workspace argument, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Aggregate') and resource ('all recorded app tests') and names the artifact produced ('dated compatibility report'), which separates it from test-running siblings like test_app_in_vm. It does not explicitly contrast itself with regression_log, the nearest sibling, 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites (e.g. tests must already be recorded), and no named alternative such as regression_log. The aggregation timing is only weakly implied by 'recorded app tests'.

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