umbra_write_report

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses determinism ('deterministic action'), privacy ('sends no data to any API'), and what it does not do ('does not run proof generation'). It also explains the server's automatic proof inclusion behavior, adding rich context about side effects and state.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the main action and required params, the second explains the default proof source, and the third discloses deterministic and privacy behavior. No fluff 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?

The description covers purpose, usage timing, parameter override, and behavioral traits. It does not mention return values, but since the tool writes files and has no output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 50%, and the description adds context for retained_proofs (explicit override behavior) but does not explain what module_path and tests_path are or their expected formats. It clarifies the usage pattern ('with module_path and tests_path only') but leaves the required parameter semantics to be inferred from names.

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: 'write both Umbra report artifacts locally with module_path and tests_path only.' It specifies the verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes from siblings by referencing umbra_verify_proposal as the source of proofs. The phrase 'After the proof loop' also situates it in the workflow.

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 provides clear temporal context ('After the proof loop') and indicates that the primary usage is with module_path and tests_path only, while retained_proofs is an optional override. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use the tool, relying on implicit workflow positioning.

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