report_review_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about what happens after reporting: 'Hlido's R1 maintenance routine processes reports daily and fires re-tests via dispute-retest sub-agent.' This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent an understanding of the tool's side effects. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or response format, but for a reporting tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose, the second gives the usage trigger, and the third explains the post-submission behavior. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and contains no fluff or redundant 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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and what happens after a report is submitted. It does not describe the response the agent will receive, but for a simple reporting tool, the explanation of the daily maintenance routine and re-test workflow is sufficient to set expectations. A slight gap is the lack of any note about confirmation or idempotency, but overall it is complete enough.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of all four parameters, including descriptions for each. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states; it merely echoes the enum values. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Report an issue with a Hlido review', and enumerates concrete issue categories (stale info, wrong verdict, missing claim, broken link) that align with the enum. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like get_scorecard or verify_claim, which are about retrieving or verifying data, not reporting problems.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use when calling get_scorecard or trust_check returns data you can prove is incorrect.' This names two specific sibling tools as triggers, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the condition is sufficiently scoped, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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