info-report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Report' implies a read-only operation, which is useful, but the description does not explain what form the report takes, whether it reflects live state, or what exactly 'areas' and 'operators' mean. It provides only minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious non-mutating implication.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently states the verb and the reported content, making it appropriately concise for a parameterless tool.

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?

The tool is simple—no parameters, no output schema, no annotations—so the description is partially adequate by stating what is reported. However, it lacks any clarification about the response format, the meaning of 'Info editor areas,' or how 'available report operators' are listed, leaving room for misunderstanding.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so no parameter documentation is needed. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 names a specific resource—'Info editor areas and available report operators'—and uses 'Report' as an action verb, which distinguishes it from sibling domain-specific report tools like particles-report or constraints-report. It is not fully crisp, though, because 'Info editor areas' is somewhat ambiguous and 'available report operators' is a meta-level concept that is not clearly defined.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as info-messages, api-report, or the many other domain report tools. There are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage intent from the name and description alone.

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