Report how a briefed task went

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

The description discloses the key side effect: it 'adjusts the term-to-agent weights it consults, so routing improves with use.' This goes beyond the annotations, which only mark the tool as not read-only. It tells the agent that calling this mutates internal routing state, which is valuable behavioral context.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, what effect it has, and when to call it. It is front-loaded with the primary action and has zero filler.

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 feedback tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the consequential side effect, and the triggering condition. All parameters are already described in the schema, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The only minor gap is that it does not describe what response or acknowledgment the agent can expect after calling.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters (task, agent, outcome, correct_agent). The description adds high-level context about reweighting terms but does not elaborate on individual parameters or their expected values. With coverage that high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Tell the router whether the agent it chose was right.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like remember, forget, and status, which handle knowledge storage or state queries. The purpose is immediately obvious and not a tautology.

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 description states when to call: 'Call after the user reacts to a subagent's work.' This gives a clear timing cue relative to user activity. It does not spell out when not to call or name alternatives, but the timing and purpose make the intended context unambiguous.

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