impri_report_result

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

Discloses the inbox effect and status options, which is adequate for a simple reporting tool. However, no annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention idempotency, error handling for invalid action_id, or any side effects beyond the inbox update.

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?

Extremely concise: two short paragraphs with clear front-loading of purpose. Every sentence adds value, no 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 no output schema and no nested objects, the description explains the tool's role in the audit loop lifecycle. It covers the statuses and when to call. Minor gap: does not specify if the report can be called multiple times, but overall sufficient for a simple result-reporting tool.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds minimal value beyond schema: restates enum values and clarifies detail usage for error vs success. Does not provide formatting or constraints beyond 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?

Clearly states the tool reports execution outcome of an approved action. Distinguishes from siblings like impri_push_action (which submits action) and impri_await_decision (which waits for decision) by targeting the post-approval reporting step.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call after attempting an approved action, even on failure. Provides context of closing the audit loop and operator visibility. Lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but sufficiently narrows usage to post-approval reporting.

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