report

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

Annotations already declare read-only and open-world behavior, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds the report's content categories, but terms like 'canonical trust' and 'field assessments' remain undefined. It doesn't disclose output format or other behavioral nuances, but with annotations covering safety, this is a modest contribution.

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 short sentence with no unnecessary words, so there is no fluff. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise—it omits critical details such as the action the tool performs and the meaning of the 'ref' parameter, making the brevity a disadvantage.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description is too sparse to understand the tool's purpose or input. With one required parameter that is completely unexplained and a vague behavioral description, the agent cannot confidently select or invoke the tool. The description is not complete enough for a tool of this complexity.

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 only required parameter 'ref' is a plain string with no description in the schema, and the tool description provides zero information about what it refers to (e.g., a repository ref, a file reference, or an ID). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent completely in the dark about the parameter's meaning.

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 is a noun phrase listing content categories ('Canonical trust and field assessments plus unhandled and lint findings') without a verb or explicit action. It doesn't clearly state that the tool produces a report or any other operation, and it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like stance or qa. This is vague rather than a complete tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions no scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, and the sibling tools are not referenced. An agent gets no information about when 'report' is the appropriate choice.

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