report_threat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the reward (+50 API calls) and the auto-flag threshold, but omits details about report reversibility, visibility, or whether the action modifies community state beyond the flag. This adds some context but leaves gaps.

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 succinct sentences, front-loaded with the tool's main action, reward, and threshold. No filler or redundancy.

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 report tool with a well-described schema and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, incentive, and outcome threshold. It does not explain post-report response or edge cases, but is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; parameters remain adequately documented by 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Report a malicious contract to the community') that clearly identifies the action and target, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scan_contract or verify_contract. It also adds relevant purpose (community reporting) and consequence (auto-flag).

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 the intended use case (reporting malicious contracts) and includes contextual incentives and thresholds, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like verify_contract or deep_scan. It offers clear context without exclusions.

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