kira_report

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

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: mentions scar system, telemetry sent only on full consent, and details for retry/failure. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true supports this write 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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second details usage and statuses. No fluff, every word adds value. Perfectly front-loaded.

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?

Sufficient for a reporting tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. Covers when-to-call, statuses, note requirements, and telemetry consent. Could add return value hint, but not critical.

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?

Description elaborates on status and note parameters beyond schema definitions (links statuses to scar system, note required for retry/failure). Schema covers 75%, description fills gaps for status (enum meaning) and note (scar system purpose).

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 reports the outcome of applying a Kira skill, with a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from sibling tools like kira_get or kira_route by emphasizing the reporting function and the ALWAYS call context.

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 explicitly says to call this after completing or failing a Kira task, lists statuses, and instructs on note inclusion for retry/failure. It implies mandatory use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives.

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