scout_finding

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: deduplication across runs and automatic capture of the recent action trace as the repro. These are significant behavioral traits that go beyond what the schema conveys. It does not contradict anything (there are no annotations) and adds valuable context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key behaviors in the first sentence, and a list of use cases in the second. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is concise and well-structured.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity (6 params, 4 required), the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits. It does not mention return values or errors, but that is not required when no output schema exists. The session parameter has detailed guidance in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat it. The description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 83% (5 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add much about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The evidence parameter's purpose for dedup is already in the schema. The description mentions 'concrete measurements' for ux-polish, which relates to detail, but this is marginal. Severity lacks a description but its enum values are self-explanatory. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Record' and the resource 'structured finding', and enumerates the types of findings (bug, UX issue, improvement). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling action tools by positioning it as the reporting tool, and lists specific use cases like crashes, oracle violations, dead ends, and ux-polish. This is explicit and unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use for anything worth reporting' and gives a comprehensive list of scenarios. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's purpose is clear enough that an agent would know to use it for recording findings rather than executing actions. The guidance is strong but lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions.

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