efficiency_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description indicates the tool generates a report (presumably read-only) but does not mention side effects, data access permissions, or any other behavioral traits beyond the high-level output.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's function.

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 output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should provide more detail on what the report contains (e.g., specific metrics or format). It only gives high-level areas without specificity, leaving the agent with an incomplete understanding of the tool's output.

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 description does not explain the parameters (days, project). The agent cannot infer what 'days' or 'project' affect without additional information, making parameter usage unclear.

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: identifying where tokens are wasted (re-read files, oversized output, cache hit rate) and providing recommendations. This verb+resource specification distinguishes it from sibling report tools like audit_summary, cost_summary, and safety_report.

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 implies the tool is used for analyzing token waste and efficiency, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance are provided, making it ambiguous for an agent to choose among siblings.

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