aoci_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose important side effects: it writes a local report and audit record but does not modify the formal index or Baseline. It also mentions a return behavior ('volume_read_only') and boundaries against related workflows. It does not cover permissions, overwrite behavior, or error cases, but it adds meaningful behavioral 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 front-loaded with the purpose and then adds side effects, return behavior, and exclusions in a compact form. Every sentence is relevant to scope or behavior, though the phrase 'Volumes v1 returns volume_read_only' is somewhat opaque without more context. It is appropriately sized overall.

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 are no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining purpose, side effects, non-effects, and workflow boundaries. The two fully described parameters reduce the need for extra parameter detail. It is complete enough for correct selection and invocation, though the return behavior and permission model remain only lightly specified.

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%, and both parameters ('path' and 'note') are fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific action and resource: record follow-up work as a local report and audit record when evidence is insufficient. It also distinguishes scope by saying it does not modify the formal index or Baseline and does not replace Curation, orphan decisions, or failure recovery. The domain jargon ('Legacy Entry semantics', 'Volumes v1') keeps it from being fully self-explanatory, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

It states a clear triggering condition: use this when evidence is insufficient to generate or decide Legacy Entry semantics reliably. It also provides exclusions by saying it does not replace Curation, orphan decisions, or failure recovery. It stops short of naming the specific sibling alternatives, so it is strong but not complete.

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