report_outcome

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing side effects (feeds Knowledge Flywheel, updates Trust Oracle if entity specified) and a failure condition (returns warning if outcome could not be persisted). It does not cover auth, rate limits, or idempotency, which are useful but not essential for this tool's core behavior.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then adding side effects and error behavior. Every sentence provides distinct, necessary information with no redundant fluff.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, side effects, entity-conditional behavior, and failure warning. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the success return value, but this is not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds some context (e.g., entity triggers Trust Oracle update, followedRecommendation corresponds to whether the original recommendation was followed), but it does not significantly expand on the schema descriptions.

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 function with a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('outcome of a decision for the Boardroom learning system'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_governance and trust_lookup by emphasizing the write/reporting nature and its side effects on the Knowledge Flywheel and Trust Oracle.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to record a decision outcome, what happened, and whether the recommendation was followed. It also explains conditional behavior with entity. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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