report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not say whether this is a read-only generation, whether it writes a file, what permissions the capture requires, or whether the capture must be stopped first. It only describes output content ('claims link to frame numbers'), which is already covered by the output 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?

One short sentence with no wasted words, and the artifact type is front-loaded. But the brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing, which caps the score.

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, but a tool taking three undocumented parameters with zero annotation coverage and no stated side effects or workflow position is not described completely enough for reliable invocation.

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% for all three parameters (device, capture, markers), so the description must compensate. It obliquely references the capture ('frame numbers in the capture') but says nothing about what device, capture identifiers, or markers mean or accept, leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.

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 fragment names the artifact produced (a Markdown evidence report) and its key property (claims linked to frame numbers), which distinguishes it from siblings like diff_actions or replay_packet. However it never states the action verb or scope, so the agent must infer that this generates a report rather than, say, retrieving one.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any sibling tool. The agent is left to guess where report fits relative to capture_stop, diff_actions, or mark_action in a workflow.

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