reliability_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool creates a short actionable report and combines description scores and token estimates, which hints at internal computation. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it internally invokes other tools, or how the estimates are derived, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Create a short reliability report') and then states the value proposition. There is no filler or repetition of schema details, making it extremely efficient.

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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, but the description adequately conveys purpose and composition. It explains that the report merges description scores and token estimates, and sibling tool names provide additional context. A minor gap is that the output format is unspecified, which would improve completeness, but it is still sufficient for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool.

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 already provides a description for the only parameter 'tools' ('List of tools to evaluate'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description's phrase 'set of tools' adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema conveys, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'a short reliability report for a set of tools.' It specifies that the tool combines description scores and token estimates, which differentiates it from siblings like score_tool_description (which scores individual descriptions) and estimate_token_cost (which estimates token costs).

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit. The description indicates that the tool aggregates scores and token estimates into a summary, suggesting it is used when an overall reliability snapshot is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling functions or provide any exclusions or alternative guidance.

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