report_review_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that reports are processed daily and that a re-test sub-agent is triggered. This gives useful behavioral context, though it omits any destructive hints, auth needs, or rate limits.

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 clear, front-loaded sentences. The first states purpose, the second gives usage condition, the third explains processing. No redundant information.

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 covers purpose, usage, and processing behavior. However, it lacks information about return values (e.g., confirmation or error handling) since no output schema is present. This is a minor gap for a reporting tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description only adds minor context (e.g., issue type enumeration and example of detail), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Report' and resource 'Hlido review' with specific issue types (stale info, wrong verdict, missing claim, broken link). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_scorecard and trust_check which are query tools.

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 'Use when calling get_scorecard or trust_check returns data you can prove is incorrect,' providing a clear trigger condition. It implies when not to use (without proof) but does not list alternative tools for other scenarios.

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