report_need

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses that feedback affects per-agent learning and is scoped to call structure, but does not mention permissions, mutability, or other behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a simple feedback tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and effect on learning. Missing only minor details like response format or error handling, but adequate for the context.

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 50% (only note has description). Description repeats the note description but adds no new meaning. Optional agentId parameter lacks any description in schema or description, so no added value.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reports awkward, missing, or slow aspects to RadMail, and distinguishes it from siblings like draft_reply or radmail_learning_insights by specifying it folds into per-agent learning on call structure only.

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?

Implied usage: used for reporting issues about call structure, not email content. No explicit when-to-use or alternatives, but the constraint 'never email content' provides some guidance.

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