report_blocker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses the state change and human intervention request, which are the key behavioral effects. It doesn't mention other potential side effects (e.g., logging), but the core impact is clear and sufficient.

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, focused sentence that conveys the essential information without any fluff. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers its purpose and condition for use. It could mention that session_id identifies the loop, but given the simplicity, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it.

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 only 50%: the 'reason' parameter has a description, but 'session_id' is bare. The description adds no parameter-level detail, failing to compensate for the undocumented session_id. This is a significant gap given the coverage.

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 action ('Updates state to STATUS_BLOCKED') and the purpose ('asks for human intervention when absolutely stuck'). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resume_loop and log_step.

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 phrase 'when absolutely stuck' provides usage context, indicating when to invoke the tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., log_step for less severe issues), leaving room for ambiguity in edge cases.

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