report_result

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs a verifier, returns specific states, and re-injects a standing order on failure. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authorization requirements, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states the verb, second explains outcomes, third clarifies a key parameter. It is concise and front-loaded, though a bit dense.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core flow (report, verify, return) and explains 'proof', but lacks details on 'summary', the verifier's nature, and why an agent would choose this over siblings. Partially complete but with noticeable gaps.

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%. The description adds meaning for the 'proof' parameter by explaining it maps criterion_id to artifact path, but does not describe the required 'summary' parameter at all. The schema itself is minimal, so the description should compensate more.

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 tool's purpose: the agent reports its actions, runs a verifier, and returns either 'FAIL+failing' or 'DONE'. It also explains the meaning of the 'proof' field. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'confirm' or 'propose', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is used after an action is performed, but lacks context on prerequisites or when to avoid it. Sibling tools are listed but not contrasted.

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