report

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

Annotations only mark this as a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: each kind has distinct semantics (e.g., question requires waiting for user judgment, done includes results and remaining work). It does not cover auth or rate limits, but it clearly describes what gets written and the different reporting modes.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose and caller context, and the second enumerates the kinds with concise definitions. No redundant sentences; every element serves a clear purpose.

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 write-only reporting tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: it explains the kinds, the waiting behavior for 'question', and the expected content. It could mention how the report is delivered or whether it blocks for other kinds, but no critical information is missing.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description compensates by thoroughly explaining the kind enum values and what each implies (e.g., question should contain question, options, and recommendation; done should contain results and remaining work). It also indirectly guides what to put in the required text parameter per kind, though from/threadId are left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: writing a report to a supervisor (監視役へ報告を書く). Context is scoped to 'work conversations' (作業の会話が使う), which helps distinguish it from general messaging tools, but it does not explicitly name a sibling like send_message for contrast.

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 usage context (work conversations) and defines when to use each kind (progress, question, done, blocked), which is helpful. However, it never explicitly compares to alternatives like send_message or read_reports, so the agent must infer that this is the reporting channel rather than a general message.

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