report_attempt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral aspects: the tool returns whether the exact problem has been tried before and whether web search is now required before retrying. It also implies statefulness by tracking previous attempts. This goes beyond a simple 'report' verb and gives context about consequences.

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 two sentences, with the first stating purpose and return values, and the second providing usage timing. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately front-loaded. No redundancy or 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?

The description covers purpose, usage timing, and return values, which is sufficient for a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema. It lacks exact return types (e.g., booleans) but the description 'returns whether...' is clear enough. Given the tool's simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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%, and the parameter descriptions are already clear (error_signature: 'The error message, test failure, or symptom text'; fix_summary: 'One-line description of the fix you just attempted'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond these, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Report' and the resource 'that a fix attempt for an error/bug just failed.' It also explains what the tool returns (whether the problem has been tried before and whether web search is required), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like confirm_search, loop_status, and reset_loop. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives explicit timing: 'Call this immediately after any failed fix, before writing more code.' This provides clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context strongly implies it is only for failed fixes.

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