mirror_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one trait — the tool reflects rather than advises — but says nothing about determinism, cost, whether both arrays must be aligned, or what the report contains. For a 2-required-param analytical tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves major gaps.

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?

Two terse sentences, front-loaded with the core comparison before the disclaiming clause. Nothing is padded, though the compressed jargon edges toward cryptic rather than economical.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation mean the description is the only source of truth, yet it omits return format and array element structure. The 'разрыв + дрейф' framing hints at the output but never says what metrics or form come back.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does map the two params semantically: 'заявленные векторы (во времени)' corresponds to stated and 'одобренные выборы' to decisions, which helps an agent know what to supply. However, it never specifies the element shape of either array (vectors as numbers? choice records?), so half the semantics remain guesswork.

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 conveys a specific concept — comparing stated vectors/values over time against approved decisions to surface a 'you say X, you choose Y' gap plus vector drift. The verb 'отражает' (reflects/mirrors) is metaphorical rather than operational, so the concrete action is inferable but not crisply stated, and no sibling (e.g. fidelity_check, validate_decision_map, stability) is referenced.

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?

'Не советует, отражает' establishes a negative boundary (this is not an advisory tool), which is a faint usage cue. There is no guidance on when to reach for this versus fidelity_check, stability, or prediction_calibration, and no prerequisites or input expectations are given.

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