One rep about what was just built

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the return behavior ('a block to print verbatim, or nothing'), the once-per-turn call discipline, and an important constraint ('Never solve or hint at it'). It omits any mention of permissions, failure modes, or what triggers an empty return, but the behavioral profile is substantially conveyed.

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?

It is compact and the critical timing instruction is front-loaded, so little is wasted. However, the density comes at the cost of clarity — the jargon-heavy phrasing packs several conditions into one sentence and leaves the reader parsing rather than understanding.

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 tool with 7 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers usage timing but leaves the parameter surface and the nature of the returned block opaque. An agent could call it at the right moment but could not reliably populate the inputs.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails to. It only obliquely touches 'the one the user asked for by handle' (mapping loosely to lane='asked') and 'turn that changed files' (possibly 'touched'); ask, kind, topic, topics, and exclude are entirely unexplained.

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 says a 'rep' is about 'what was just built' and that it returns a block to print verbatim, which hints at a generated exercise/prompt artifact. But the core noun 'rep' is never defined, and the opening clause largely restates the title. An agent can infer the shape of the output but not clearly what the tool actually produces or why.

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?

Strong timing and conditionality: 'Call once as the last step of a turn that changed files, before your final reply, unless the turn ends by asking the user something.' It also clarifies that 'uncommitted or untested work counts,' removing a likely ambiguity. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, but the when/when-not guidance is explicit.

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