report_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: a data-minimization constraint (never prompts or outputs) and a downstream effect ('Failed runs become outcome reports for the skill'), neither of which is in the schema. It stops short of stating auth requirements, rate limits, or what a successful call returns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each adds something (purpose, content restriction, failure behavior). Slightly dense in the middle clause, but nothing is redundant 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?

For a 4-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, permitted payload, and failure-path behavior well. The main gap is the absence of any statement about the return value or permission requirements, which matters more here because there is no output schema to lean on.

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 100%, so every parameter and nested step field is already documented in the schema; the description only gestures at the step fields it cares about ('name, kind, duration, tokens, status'). No additional syntax or semantics are added beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Report a finished agent run to ModelBound') plus the payload's purpose ('each step is tied to the skill that shaped it'), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely related sibling skill.report_outcome, which an agent would have to disambiguate on its own.

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 implies usage ('Report a finished agent run') and gives a clear content rule ('Send step summaries only ... never prompts or outputs'), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus skill.report_outcome or guidance on whether reporting should happen once per run or incrementally per step. The exclusion is about payload contents, not about choosing between tools.

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