report_completion

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Report completion' implies a write/persist operation, but the description doesn't state whether this updates a workflow state, whether it can overwrite previous reports, what happens on failure to report, or any side effects beyond recording. For a state-modifying tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that captures the core purpose. No wasted words or redundancy. It's appropriately concise for a tool whose parameters are well documented in the schema.

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 6 parameters (including nested metrics objects and two file-array params), no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is underspecified. It doesn't clarify the relationship between the nested 'metrics' object and the top-level filesCreated/filesModified arrays (redundancy risk), nor what a successful report returns or when it's appropriate to report partial vs failed status.

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%, so structural parameter documentation is complete. The description mentions 'metrics and results' which maps broadly to the metrics/files fields, but adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents all parameters well.

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 a specific verb ('Report') with a clear resource ('completion of a workflow step') and mentions it includes 'metrics and results'. It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_execution_metrics (reading) and start_workflow/pause_execution (lifecycle control), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. It doesn't state whether this should be called at the end of each workflow step, whether it replaces or complements other reporting tools, or any exclusions. Given the sibling set includes get_metrics, analyze_code, and manage_execution, clear usage direction would help.

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