report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that the tool evaluates and returns a value, but does not explicitly clarify whether it is read-only or has side effects. Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is adequate but could be enhanced with statements about nondestructive behavior.

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 that is front-loaded and efficient. It is concise but not overly terse, providing essential information without unnecessary words. Some might argue for slight expansion on usage, but overall it is well-structured.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It covers the core functionality. However, it could briefly mention the output schema or typical return values, though that is covered by the output schema itself.

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 100%, and the parameter description already explains the reporter expression. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the parameter's purpose, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not exceed it.

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 verb 'evaluate' and the resource 'NetLogo reporter expression', specifying the action and the type of input. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'command' which executes commands without returning values, and other tools that manipulate models or retrieve data.

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?

The description implies usage for evaluating reporters to get values, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'command' (for side effects) or 'get_agent_sample' (for agent data). No when-not or alternative references are provided.

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