report_narrative_signals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool makes network requests, requires authentication, or is read-only. It only mentions returning signals, which implies a read operation but leaves ambiguity.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is concise and lists examples efficiently. Minor improvement could be a more structured list, but overall it is well-sized.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too brief. It does not explain return format, how signals are computed, or how to combine parameters. Essential context for effective use 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% (all 9 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning beyond listing output examples; it does not explain how parameters affect the result. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema already covers parameters.

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 tool returns report-derived narrative signals and lists specific examples (latest reported issues, recurring issues, etc.). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like reporting_gaps or reporting_reliability.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reporting_gaps or community_health_summary. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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