report_memory

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

Beyond annotations (which declare non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), the description reveals that after 3 reports, a memory is automatically hidden from public view pending admin review. This adds valuable insight into the tool's side effects and consequences of repeated use.

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 well-structured with a clear header, 'WHEN TO USE' section, list of reasons, a behavioral note, and an example. It is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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's simplicity (no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: purpose, use cases, reasons, and a key behavioral outcome. The example provides a concrete usage pattern. It could be slightly more complete by explaining the return result, but it is sufficient for an agent.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a bit of extra context by listing the reasons and giving an example call, but it doesn't significantly elaborate on parameter meanings beyond the schema.

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 action ('report') and resource ('public memory') with the specific purpose ('inappropriate content'), using a strong verb and resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning a unique function not covered by others.

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 explicit 'WHEN TO USE' conditions, listing relevant scenarios like spam, misleading content, and personal information. It also includes the allowable reasons, offering clear context for when the tool should be invoked, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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