report_saturation

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: auto-transition, no pausing, operator as only stop condition. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but for a reporting tool this is sufficient.

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?

Four sentences, each adding essential information. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by behavioral details. No redundant or vague statements.

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 reporting tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, and stopping conditions. It could mention return value or confirmation, but it is acceptable given the context.

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 50% (evidence parameter has a description, runId does not). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the missing runId description.

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 saturation for a lane and triggers an automatic transition. It uses specific terms like 'lane' and 'saturation', but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'loop_next' or 'cycle_decision_request'.

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 implies usage when saturation is reached, and explains the automatic behavior and operator stop condition. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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