local_workboard_add_agent_report

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., modifies work item), idempotency, permission requirements, or what dry_run does despite default true.

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, concise sentence. However, it lacks necessary detail for a tool with 12 parameters, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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 high parameter count, zero schema description coverage, and no annotation, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values (output schema exists but unmentioned) or provide context needed for correct invocation.

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 0%, meaning no parameter documentation in schema. The description does not explain the meaning, format, or constraints of any of the 12 parameters (e.g., role, scope, findings, dry_run).

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 the action: 'plan or append a structured agent report to a local private work item'. It identifies verb and resource but is ambiguous about whether it plans or appends. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like local_workboard_init or gitea_create_work_item.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or conditions under which this tool is preferred over others.

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