report_done

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

There are no annotations to carry the safety or side-effect profile, so the description takes full responsibility. It explicitly discloses three side effects, including that file claims get released, history is pruned to MAX_HISTORY, and conflict checking is non-blocking (reminds but does not block). It also discloses TTL expiration behavior. This is high-quality behavioral disclosure.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary, a numbered list of effects, an edge-case condition, and parameter clarifications. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the most important behavioral details are front-loaded.

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 tool with three side effects, an edge case, and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral and parameter context quite thoroughly. An output schema exists for return values, so that is not needed here. The only notable gap is the undocumented project parameter, which keeps this from being fully complete.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains agent (must match the claim), summary (what was done/result), and files (comma-separated, recommended for conflict checking). However, the project parameter is not explained, leaving one of four parameters undocumented.

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 names a specific action (reporting task completion) and enumerates three concrete effects: marking a claim as reported, appending a history entry with automatic pruning, and checking for conflicting changes. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like release_claim or send_note, which have narrower purposes.

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 context is clear: this is the tool to call when claimed work is finished. It also gives a conditional rule—if the claim has expired, re-run claim_files first—which helps an agent decide when not to call it directly. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the usage scenario is strongly implied and actionable.

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