report_outcome

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does so by stating: 'v0 emits an outcome_reported NDJSON event for the navigation; no posterior updates yet.' This reveals side effects (emitting event) and limitations (no updates), providing adequate transparency for an agent.

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 sentences long, each sentence earning its place: first states purpose, second ties to policy framework, third gives behavioral details and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently structured without waste.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, side effect (NDJSON event), and links to documentation. It does not explain return value format, but the mention of the emitted event suffices for an agent. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role in the policy framework.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by contextualizing the purpose: it explains that navigation_id joins to policy_trace, task_class enums are listed, and error/quality are optional. This goes beyond the schema, giving the agent a better understanding of how parameters relate to the tool's goal.

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 tool's purpose: 'Bind a task outcome (success/failure/quality) to a previous navigation_id from a navigate() call.' It specifies the verb (bind/report), resource (task outcome), and relation to navigation_id, distinguishing it from siblings like navigate or extract which are about navigation or extraction.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Drivers should call this once per agent task so future Bayesian phases can attribute extraction success/failure to specific policy decisions.' It tells when to call and why, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which is acceptable given no sibling tool has similar function.

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