project_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses the API-key requirement and the nature of the returned content, and 'tells the user' implies a non-mutating read operation. It does not mention behavior like error conditions, rate limits, or whether the report is generated from live or cached data, which prevents a higher score.

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 compact: one sentence enumerating the report contents and a second sentence for prerequisites. It is front-loaded with the report's purpose and avoids filler. The dependency clause is slightly convoluted, but the overall length and structure are appropriate.

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?

Given a single parameter, an existing output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation details: what the report contains, the API-key prerequisite, and where to get the project name. It does not discuss error cases or alternative tools in depth, but an agent has enough information to call and interpret this 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?

The schema provides only a `name` string with no description, so the description must compensate. It does so by indicating that the name comes from `list_projects` and represents one of the user's projects, giving semantic grounding the bare schema lacks. For a single parameter, this is meaningful and sufficient guidance.

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 identifies the resource ('one of their projects') and the core output categories: withdrawn versions, behind dependencies, notable missing release lines, and where full notes live. It also distinguishes itself from `list_projects` by implying that list_projects only supplies names. However, the wording 'What PackageTrack tells the user' is indirect rather than a strong verb phrase like 'returns a report'.

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 actionable guidance by stating that a PackageTrack API key is needed and that `list_projects` supplies the names, which tells the agent how to prepare the required input. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context is clear enough for tool selection.

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