report_outcome

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that v0 emits an NDJSON event and that no posterior updates are yet implemented. It also mentions future Bayesian phases. However, it does not discuss side effects of multiple calls, error cases, or permission requirements.

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 four sentences (approx. 80 words), front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence serves a clear role: purpose, reference, version behavior, and usage guidance. No wasted words.

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, 2 required, and no output schema, the description covers the main usage and link to documentation but does not describe the return value or how errors are reported. It is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 100%, so descriptions for all 6 parameters are present in the schema. The description adds minimal extra context (e.g., linking navigation_id to policy_trace event, quality as 0..1 score) but overall does not significantly augment the schema beyond what is already provided.

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 ('Bind') and resource ('task outcome to a previous navigation_id'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like navigate or extract by specifying its role in the policy framework's outcome protocol.

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 explains this tool is part of the policy framework, references documentation, and instructs drivers to call it once per agent task. It implies when to use (after navigate, once per task) but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

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