report_playbook_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that this is an opt-in crowd-learning report, suggesting a non-critical, voluntary action, and it defines the kind values. However, it doesn't disclose whether data is sent externally, if the action is a write that persists data, any required permissions, or potential side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool without annotation support.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Opt-in crowd-learning') and immediately follows with the action and key kind values. It contains no redundant phrasing and every word contributes to understanding the tool's intent.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and a modest output schema, the description covers the core action and some parameter semantics but leaves 'diff' unexplained and offers no guidance on when to use the tool. The output schema exists, so return values aren't needed, but the overall context is still incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's role and edge cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'kind' by listing the allowed values (success, drift, break) and implies that 'source_slug' is the source being reported on. However, the 'diff' parameter is entirely unexplained, and the description doesn't clarify the format or purpose of that parameter, leaving a third of the parameters underspecified.

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 clearly states the tool's function: reporting what worked, moved, or broke on a source to improve the next pack version. It uses a specific verb ('report') and identifies the resource ('on a source'), with 'kind' values enumerated, which helps distinguish it from other reporting tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like submit_findings or record_outcome, so it misses the highest bar for differentiation.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it says 'opt-in,' which implies voluntary use, it doesn't clarify conditions, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. The sibling tools include other reporting and recording tools, but no comparison or exclusion is mentioned.

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