do_report

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the entire burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does not state that this is a non-mutating read, whether permissions or scopes are required, or whether results are paginated or cached. The enumeration of metric categories is useful context but is content scope rather than behavioral context, and the opaque "§15.8" reference conveys nothing to an agent without external documentation.

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 definition is short and front-loads the metric inventory, but it is written in telegraphic fragments and includes a documentation section reference that does not parse for an agent. Nothing is gratuitously repeated, yet the terseness costs clarity rather than buying it.

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 values need not be explained, and the tool's surface is simple with only one parameter. What remains missing is precisely what the free-form payload schema cannot provide: required subfields, id cardinality, format default, and the read-only safety profile that the absent annotations leave unstated.

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 input schema is a single free-form "payload" object with zero description coverage, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, and it does add real value by decomposing the payload into point_id and format with the json|md values. It stops short of saying whether point_id is a single id or a list, whether it is required, or what the default format is, so the compensation is partial.

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 says it produces "per-point metrics" and enumerates the metric families (agreement, coverage, auto share, audits, savings, drift, promotion blockers), so the resource is identifiable. But the verb is only implied through the tool name, and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling dm_report, which the agent cannot rule out on the basis of the text alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, even though dm_report and do_analyze are obvious competitors in the sibling set. The only routing hint is the fragment "With workflow, the one-turn workflow report (§15.8)," which signals a conditional mode without saying when an agent should pick that mode over plain per-point metrics.

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