report_usage

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes further by stating the exact side-effect scope: 'Stores feedback only; it does not change the current bundle or the ranking of this session.' It also explains the semantic meaning of an empty list as a knowledge gap, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Three sentences, all information-dense: purpose, timing, empty-list semantics, and side-effect disclosure. The most important scoping ('does not change the current bundle or ranking') is placed at the end but clearly stated. No filler words or redundant restating of the title.

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 two-parameter feedback tool with a 100%-described schema, output schema, and annotations covering idempotency and non-read-only behavior, the description covers all necessary call-time context: what input it expects, when to call, what an empty list means, and that it has no effect on the bundle/ranking. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of useful_chunk_ids by noting 'empty list means nothing helped,' but the schema already says this. No additional parameter-level syntax or format nuance is added beyond what the schema provides, so no score above baseline is warranted.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Record which sections of a compile_bundle result were actually useful for the task, by chunk_id.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like compile_bundle (produces the bundle), get_document, and propose_update by framing this as a feedback-recording action on a prior result.

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 provides clear when-to-use context: 'Optional, best called once after the task is done.' It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('does not change the current bundle or the ranking'), which indirectly tells the agent this is a post-hoc logging step rather than an alternative to update/propose tools. It stops short of naming explicit alternative exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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