interference_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the main behavior (reporting clusters and providing a suggestion), but it omits details about parameter effects, sorting, limits, or whether it is strictly read-only. This makes it moderately transparent but incomplete.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action ('Report cue-crowded clusters') and adds the relevant suggestion detail without excessive wording.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented parameters. The description explains the core concept but lacks essential information about parameters and expected results, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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%—the description does not explain the 'limit' or 'shared_cue_min' parameters. The schema only provides their types, and the description fails to add any meaning, leaving the agent unable to determine how to set these 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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and clearly identifies the resource as 'cue-crowded clusters' caused by interference, which differentiates it from sibling reports like similarity_report or association_report. The added details about the suggestion and the Wickens 1972 citation further clarify its unique focus.

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 gives clear context about when this tool is relevant—when cue crowding causes interference—but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This aligns with 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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