report_project_coding_result

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not state whether the tool has side effects, modifies state, or requires special permissions. The read-only nature is only implied by 'Return' but not confirmed.

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 extremely brief, which is concise, but it omits critical information. It is not well-structured to convey the purpose or usage effectively, and the single sentence lacks necessary detail.

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 the tool's complexity (13 parameters, output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the output format, error handling, or relationship to other tools, leaving major gaps for correct usage.

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?

None of the 13 parameters are described in the tool description or schema. The schema provides only names and types, but no meaning, purpose, or constraints for each field, leaving the agent without essential usage details.

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 states a verb ('Return') and a resource ('implementation evidence'), but 'bounded' is vague and the target 'Lightbulb Project Agent' is unclear. It does not specify what kind of evidence or how it differs from numerous sibling reporting tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would trigger its use.

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