Start Webhound Report

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

Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent nature. Description adds critical behavioral details: the report is long-running, budget affects depth, and finalization should wait until done=true. No contradiction with annotations.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loads the action. It avoids unnecessary detail, but could be more structured (e.g., listing key parameters). Still efficient.

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 tool's complexity (8 params, no param descriptions), the description covers starting and monitoring but omits many parameter semantics. Since output schema exists, return values are covered, but parameter documentation is lacking.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters, but only mentions 'budget' implicitly. Other parameters (title, file_ids, enable_checkpoints, etc.) are not described, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 action: start a private long-running report with the Hound research harness. It specifies the verb 'start' and the resource 'report', distinguishing it from sibling tools like webhound_start_dataset.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Budget controls research depth; watch until done=true. Do not force finalization before done=true.' This tells when to use (start and watch) and what not to do (premature finalization). Could be improved by noting that this is for starting, not monitoring.

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