report_content

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

The description lacks behavioral context beyond the core action. It does not mention what happens after reporting (e.g., anonymity, consequences), authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the report is reversible. With no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 concise at one sentence, but it does not front-load key parameter details or structure information hierarchically. It sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity with a nested subject object and an enum for reasonType, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the structure of subject, the meaning of reasonType values, or the optional reason field. No output schema is provided.

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?

The description provides no information about the parameters (subject, reasonType, reason) despite 0% schema description coverage. It fails to explain what 'subject' refers to, the allowed values for 'reasonType', or the purpose of the optional 'reason' field.

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 'Report' and the resource 'content', specifying it is for content that violates community guidelines or terms of service. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'report_user', which focuses on users.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'report_user' or other moderation tools. The description does not include conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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