report_saturation

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the supervisor auto-transitions, never pauses, and that the operator is the only stop condition. This provides clear behavioral expectations beyond the basic action.

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 paragraph with three sentences, front-loading the main action. It is clear and efficient, though the second and third sentences add important behavioral context. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description explains the tool's effect (auto-transition) and key behavioral traits, but does not mention return values or confirmation of the report. Since there is no output schema, the description should ideally address what the agent can expect after invoking the tool, which is missing.

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?

The description adds context to the parameters: it explains that 'runId' identifies the lane (e.g., Strip Miner) and that 'evidence' is the saturation evidence. This supplements the schema, which only describes 'evidence' as 'batches that changed nothing material'. However, it does not specify constraints or formats for 'runId'.

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's purpose: reporting saturation to trigger an automatic lane transition. It specifies the action ('tell the supervisor') and the context ('current lane has reached evidence-backed saturation'), which distinguishes it from termination or pause actions.

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 explains when to use the tool (when saturation is reached) and what the supervisor does next (auto-transition). It clarifies that this is not a terminal action, but does not compare with sibling tools like 'cycle_decision_request' or 'request_next_phase', missing explicit exclusions.

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