report_outcome

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

Annotations state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with a write operation. The description does not add any behavioral details beyond annotations, such as side effects, required permissions, or idempotency.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not earn its place because it fails to provide essential parameter details.

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 (6 parameters, 4 required) and lack of parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what telemetry is reported, whether the operation is idempotent, or error conditions. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing parameter semantics.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The meaning of 'used', 'accepted', 'improved', 'run_id', 'retrieval_id' is not clarified, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance to populate them correctly.

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 verb 'report telemetry' and the resource 'retrieved lesson', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_event or record_failure. However, 'telemetry' is somewhat generic and could be more specific.

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 such as record_event or learn.telemetry. No exclusions or context provided.

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