info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds a list of reported topics but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. Given the strong annotation coverage, the additional value is moderate.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Report', and each listed item is essential. There is no filler, and the list of reportable content is compact yet descriptive.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters) and has an output schema that will document return values. The description covers the main categories of information, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. There is no missing context that would lead to misuse.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty properties). Per rubric, missing parameter documentation is excused when there are no parameters. The description correctly focuses on the output categories rather than parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb 'Report' and enumerates the resources (server, backend, model, platform, limits, metrics). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like decide, batch_decide, and filter, which focus on decision-making rather than environment information.

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 purpose clearly implies usage when the agent needs environment or runtime information. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. The context is clear but left to inference.

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