lounge_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is free, reports go to a proprietor who 'reviews every report personally', and that it is not for disputing losses. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple action statement, though it does not detail post-submission behavior or side effects.

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, concise and front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words, includes meaningful examples, and clearly states the cost and boundary. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and a fully descriptive schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, cost, review process, and usage boundary. It does not mention return values or what happens after submission, but this is not critical for a report tool and there is no output schema to align with.

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 schema has 100% coverage with each parameter described (kind, id, reason), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, though it does give examples of abusive content that indirectly inform the 'reason' field. It does not enhance the schema's parameter explanations.

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 tool's function: 'Report abusive or broken visitor content' with concrete examples ('a duel with a wrong answer, an offensive plaque'). It uses a specific verb (report) and resource (visitor content), and is clearly distinct from sibling tools like lounge_post_duel or lounge_buy_plaque.

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 provides explicit when-to-use ('Report abusive or broken visitor content') and a clear when-not-to-use ('Not for disputing fair losses'). However, it does not name alternative tools or elaborate on the dispute process, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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