Report Interruption

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that a watchdog verifies the report and schedules recovery, but it omits key mutation behavior such as idempotency, permissions, task status changes, and what the caller should expect after submission.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by one behavioral detail. There is no filler or repetition.

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 reporting/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what 'verifies and schedules recovery' means operationally, whether the task is retried or cancelled, or what response the caller receives.

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 moderate at 67%: error and exitCode are documented in the schema, while taskId is self-explanatory. The description loosely maps to the 'error' parameter but adds no meaning beyond the schema and says nothing about exitCode or taskId usage.

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 states a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('error or interruption for a task'), making the tool's core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as report_progress, cancel_task, or mark_completed.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: report when a task has an error or interruption. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and does not name alternatives such as report_progress or cancel_task.

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