aegis_report_outcome

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and the schema covers retry safety, yet the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: what actually gets credited, that rules_used is not the credit source, that unwitnessed claims earn nothing, and that reports are capped per session. The only gap is that the cap value and the returned payload are not characterized.

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 purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, which is good, but sentence two is a single run-on that packs crediting, tree matching, CI landing-commit requirements, unwitnessed-claim fallback and session caps into one unparsable clause chain. The content is dense with genuine information, yet the structure makes it hard to extract the actionable rule.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description does cover the hard part — the crediting and capping semantics that an agent could never infer. However, it omits what the call returns, how the different outcome enum values affect crediting, and what the view projection yields, leaving the agent to guess at the result of the call.

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 63%, so the schema already documents most parameters (files, rules_used, idempotency_key, view, outcome). The description adds one meaningful clarification — that the rules_used array is not what is credited — but says nothing about outcome values, rework_count, tests_passed, notes, or the view projection, so it neither compensates for the uncovered third nor meaningfully exceeds the schema.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and object — report whether the rules you were shown helped — which is enough to place the tool as the feedback/outcome step of the aegis rule loop. It never names a sibling MCP tool (aegis_scan, aegis_create_rule) to sharpen the boundary, and the dense crediting explanation that follows muddies the one-line purpose rather than reinforcing it.

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?

It implies the required usage context (report only pays off when an `aegis check --record` ran against exactly the tree the server computes now) and states the fallback when that condition is absent. That is real when/when-not guidance, but it is framed as server-side crediting mechanics rather than as a rule for choosing this tool over its siblings.

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