report_error

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say where the error report goes, whether duplicates are deduplicated, or what a caller should expect after reporting.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is structurally fine. However, it is so thin that brevity shades into under-specification for a five-parameter mutation tool.

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?

For a five-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description omits what happens to the report, whether task_id is needed for correlation, and how severity affects routing. Annotations cover only the safety profile, leaving a real explanatory gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters (task_id, severity, recoverable, stack_trace, error_message). The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a clear verb+resource pair ("Report an error") that an agent can distinguish from read/write task tools in the sibling list. It stops short of naming when this is preferable to other reporting channels (e.g., add_comment, session_report), so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

"Encountered during work" gives a vague situational hint but states no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (add_comment, session_report, publish_summary). No prerequisites or conditions are offered.

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