actiond_run_report

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

The annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description reinforces 'without writing any new state.' It also promises explicit 'unknown' values, which prevents agents from assuming false confidence. It does not mention potential error conditions or external dependencies, but the main behavioral guarantees are covered.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose but becomes a long run-on sentence that enumerates report sections and repeats the 'unknown' behavior. It is understandable but not tightly edited; a more compact structure would improve scannability.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the JSON report's conceptual sections (what changed, why, did it work, trustworthiness, continuation, rollback) and the explicit handling of unknowns. It does not specify exact field names or error behavior, but the overall output contract is clear enough for an agent.

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 100% and each parameter has a meaningful description. The prose repeats those meanings without adding significant constraints or interactions beyond what the schema already states. No additional parameter semantics are needed, but none are provided beyond the schema.

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: generate a goal run report as one structured JSON that reconstructs changes, verification, and rollback status. It explicitly distinguishes the tool from write operations by saying it writes no new state. The resource and verb are unambiguous.

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 explains that it aggregates git log, CI/CD job verdicts, and task handoff status, and that task_id triggers a task report lookup. It does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like actiond_status or actiond_diagnose, but the aggregation role and conditional task lookup provide practical usage guidance.

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