ai_report

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

Annotations establish a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds behavior beyond that: it is usable during the Allow AI wait and after approval, output is length-bounded and language-matched, and there are explicit content prohibitions (no commands, secrets, reasoning). These are meaningful traits the annotations do not encode.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the constraints follow immediately; every clause earns its place.

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 simple one-param notification tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and content limits adequately. The only minor gap is that nothing indicates whether repeated calls are expected or how the report is surfaced, but the annotations handle the safety profile.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single 'message' param. It does add substantive content constraints — one or two brief sentences, the person's language, no raw commands/secrets/internal reasoning — which materially shape what goes into the field. It stops short of naming the field or its 280-char limit, but the semantics are well conveyed.

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?

States a specific verb (Report) and resource (the current action, result or next step) plus the addressee (the person) and format (one or two brief sentences in their language). It is immediately clear what the tool does. It doesn't need sibling differentiation since no other ai_* tool overlaps, but it also doesn't route against anything explicitly.

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 real timing context — it works both while waiting for Allow AI and after approval — which tells the agent when the tool is callable. However it never states when to report vs. stay silent, nor references any alternative mechanism, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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