ensemble_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes the report's contents but fails to state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires certain conditions (e.g., an active ensemble session). This leaves uncertainty about its 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, information-dense sentence that leads with the report's core purpose and then specifies its contents. It avoids irrelevant details, though the long middle section could be slightly unwieldy.

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 three parameters are fully described in the schema and the description thoroughly explains the report's scope and content (including spread at all listeners), the tool is adequately specified for a reporting operation. No output schema exists, but the description covers the main return value categories.

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?

The input schema fully documents all three parameters (path, frame, content) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and identifies the resource as 'what a listener on the stage actually hears', listing specific metrics (distance, speech time, propagation delay, player action moment, spread). This clearly distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like ensemble_read or ensemble_status.

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 clearly implies the tool is for obtaining a detailed listening report, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as ensemble_read or ensemble_status, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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