Escalate Blocker

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

Annotations already declare idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds that escalation marks for urgent attention and surfaces to stakeholders, but doesn't detail any side effects (e.g., notifications, state changes). No contradiction 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?

Two concise sentences with the primary action and usage context front-loaded. No redundant or extraneous text.

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?

For a simple tool with two required parameters and annotations present, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. It lacks mention of return or confirmation, but given no output schema and low complexity, it is nearly 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 coverage is 50% with only 'reason' having a description. The tool description does not compensate for the missing 'blocker_id' parameter semantics, leaving the agent to infer its purpose. Baseline 3 adjusted down due to lack of compensation.

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 action ('Mark a blocker as escalated') and the resource ('blocker'), with a specific state ('open but needs urgent attention'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve (which closes) and create.

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?

Provides a clear usage scenario: 'when a blocker has been open too long and needs to be surfaced to stakeholders.' While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, the context is sufficient given the sibling tool names.

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