event_report

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is an append (non-destructive), writes to a dated local file, and is network-free ('No network.'). However, it does not explain return values, error behavior, file creation, or whether appends are atomic, which are relevant for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action and destination are front-loaded, and the extra 'No network.' sentence adds distinct behavioral value without redundancy.

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 has nine parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this minimal description is not enough. An agent would still be uncertain about required field semantics, how to construct a valid telemetry line, and what happens after the append.

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 compensate, but it does not explain any of the nine parameters. The phrase 'telemetry line' provides only a general context; the agent still gets no help understanding fields like 'blocked,' 'touched,' or 'confidence' beyond their names and enums.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Append a telemetry line to akis/YYYY-MM-DD.jsonl.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the fact-oriented siblings (fact_search, fact_read, fact_propose) by indicating it is for telemetry recording, not fact operations.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not state that this is for reporting events as opposed to reading facts, nor does it mention conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the word 'telemetry.'

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