Report Experience with a Capability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions that reports feed into trust scores and requires a proof-of-possession hash, but does not disclose side effects, default rate limits, or whether the action is idempotent. The behavioral transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by impact and key requirement. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description explains the high-level purpose and the critical hash requirement, but lacks guidance on how to fill out environment/details sub-fields or what the response contains. Completeness is moderate.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that content_hash proves file possession and linking it to the cert artifact, but other parameters (e.g., details, environment) are not elaborated beyond the schema. No significant extra meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 purpose: 'Submit an experience report for a certified capability.' It uses a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('experience report'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like check_certification or search_capabilities by focusing on reporting usage outcomes.

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 explicit guidance on the required content_hash and optional API key for rate limits, but does not compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool. It lacks explicit context about prerequisites beyond the hash.

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