benthic_report

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that reports are stored as pending and only served after catalog verification and an offline A/B evaluation, so a bad report cannot affect current behavior. It also clarifies the required phrasing style (instruction to future self, not a complaint) and the call-once constraint, which matches the non-idempotent annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the trigger, then the safety note, then the exclusion. Every sentence contributes, though the pending/verification explanation runs slightly long.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the mutation intent is clear against the annotations. However, with 0% schema coverage the four undocumented parameters (dataset, relation, confidence, question_summary) leave an agent guessing about what to supply.

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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies 'lesson' (write as an instruction, not a complaint) implicitly covers 'symptom', but says nothing about dataset, relation, confidence, or question_summary, leaving four of six parameters undefined.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: recording one mistake and its correction so future sessions avoid it. The purpose is unmistakably distinct from the sibling query/discover/playbook tools, and an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit timing ('Call this once after answering'), an explicit trigger condition ('only if a tool call or a source convention misled you'), and an explicit exclusion ('Do not call it when nothing went wrong'). This is textbook when/when-not guidance.

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