report_saturation

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains that the supervisor auto-transitions, never pauses, awaits the operator only for stop conditions, and treats saturation as a pivot. This provides good context beyond the schema.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds useful context (auto-transition behavior, no pausing, operator as stop condition). It could be slightly more concise but is not overly verbose.

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 and behavior well, but it does not mention return values or side effects (e.g., confirmation of saturation report). Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, more detail on what happens after reporting would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 50% (evidence has description, runId does not). The description mentions 'evidence-backed saturation' but does not add specifics about the runId or evidence parameter format or constraints. It does not 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's purpose: informing the supervisor that a lane has reached evidence-backed saturation. It uses specific verbs and resources ('Tell the supervisor...') and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like loop_next by focusing on the saturation trigger. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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 when to use (when evidence-backed saturation is reached) and describes behavioral consequences (auto-transition). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., reverify_run, loop_next) and does not state prerequisites or conditions.

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