error_reports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses the key side effect: flush=true posts pending reports to GitHub. It also implies a read-only status mode via 'Show', though it does not detail credentials, failure behavior, or whether reports are removed after posting.

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?

Two compact sentences cover both modes and the report scope without wasted words. The primary status-checking purpose is front-loaded, with the side-effect flag described immediately after.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, flush behavior, and what kind of reports are involved. It could be slightly more explicit about what the status response looks like or what happens after a successful flush, but this is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the flush parameter. It does so effectively by explaining exactly what flush=true does, which the bare schema property name does not convey. The default behavior is also inferable from the first sentence.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'Show automatic error-reporting status' and flush behavior. It also clarifies what that status covers (pending/reported crash/error reports and target repo), which makes the tool's role unambiguous among the unrelated sibling 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 clearly establishes the two usage modes: inspect status by default, or pass flush=true to post pending reports to GitHub. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the intended context is clear and no competing error-reporting sibling exists.

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