Trigger Report Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the dispatch mechanism (POST to Trentina alert endpoint forwarded to the owning gatherer), required env config (TRENTINA_ALERT_URL + METSUKE_ALERT_TOKEN), and the pull-owner branch behavior (run opened and left for owner). These are real side-effect and prerequisite details beyond the schema.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the follow-up detail (mechanism, prerequisites, pull-owner case) is genuinely useful rather than filler. Slightly dense but every clause earns its place.

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 not be explained, and the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and the alternate pull-owner execution path. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'name' param is already documented with an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond it, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 and resource ('Fire a report gather') and the distinguishing condition ('right now, without waiting for its schedule'), which separates it from scheduling/spec/definition siblings like upsert_definition_tool and get_sweep_tool.

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 'right now, without waiting for its schedule' clause clearly situates when to use it versus the normal scheduled path, and it states the configuration prerequisite. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, so not a 5.

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