Write Report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the file it creates and its location, but does not mention whether it overwrites existing files, any permission requirements, side effects on task state, or error behavior. For a tool that writes to disk, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides the concrete file naming and location, then clarifies the role of task_id. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core behavior (file creation, naming, path) but does not mention when to use this tool versus siblings like write_issue or write_review, nor any prerequisites or side effects. Since an output schema exists, the return value is covered elsewhere, but the lack of usage context and alternative differentiation leaves the agent under-informed.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that task_id, reporter, and recipient are used in the generated filename, which the schema does not convey. It also clarifies task_id as the canonical reference, enriching the meaning beyond the schema's simple 'Source task ID'.

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 clearly states the verb 'write' and the resource 'completion report for a task', and gives the specific file naming convention and path. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic report writing, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like write_issue or write_review, so it misses the highest level of clarity.

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 implies usage for completion reports ('Write a completion report for a task') and gives the file path, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., write_issue, write_review). No exclusions or conditions are stated, leaving the agent to infer.

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