lattice-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. The word 'report' implies a read-only or inspection behavior, but the description does not disclose what the output contains, whether any side effects occur, or how 'data and point state' are structured. This is minimal transparency beyond the stated purpose.

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 sentence and every word contributes to the tool's purpose. There is no redundancy or wasted prose.

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 one-parameter report tool, the description is minimally viable: it identifies the target resource and what will be reported. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not fully clarify the response shape, the scope of 'data and point state,' or error conditions.

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 input schema only has an 'object' parameter whose title is 'Lattice object to inspect,' and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not add meaningful parameter guidance beyond repeating 'lattice object,' leaving possible ambiguity about what kinds of object references are accepted.

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 uses a specific verb ('report') and names the exact resources covered ('lattice object, data, and point state'), making its purpose clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lattice-create, lattice-set, and lattice-point_set, which imply mutation rather than inspection.

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?

Usage is implied: the user should call this when they want to inspect lattice-related state. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as lattice-set or lattice-point_set, nor does it provide exclusion conditions.

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