forum_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world, so the safety bar is lower; the description nevertheless adds real context beyond them — no GPS positions are included (privacy), output is text and nothing is written to disk, and the result is meant for user review before posting.

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 dense paragraph, front-loaded with what the artifact is and its contents before the trailing workflow note. Every clause carries information, though the sentence is long and slightly meandering.

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 structure need not be re-explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description rounds this out with content, privacy, and review-workflow details; the only real gap is the unexplained 'path' parameter.

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 single 'path' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden, but it never clarifies what path is expected (a log file, a directory, an existing analysis). It only hints at a log source indirectly through the report contents.

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 names a specific artifact (a Markdown reply for a discuss.ardupilot.org thread) and enumerates its contents: vehicle/firmware, onset and impact, findings with corroborating log records, and text plots. It is clearly distinguishable from all siblings (analyze_log, log_summary, incident_timeline, etc.), though the generative verb itself is only implied rather than stated.

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?

It gives a workflow instruction ('Review it with the user and add what they saw before they post it'), which implies the intended use case, but never states when to reach for this tool over siblings like analyze_log or incident_timeline, nor any prerequisites (e.g., what log must already be loaded).

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