report_task_completion

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

No annotations provided; description discloses automatic memory saving and metrics update as side effects. It also mentions dashboard update. Lacks detail on error conditions or reversibility, but overall transparent about key behaviors.

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 adequately structured with a purpose statement and an Args list, but somewhat verbose. Could be more concise by trimming redundant phrasing while retaining necessary detail.

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 output schema exists and the tool has moderate complexity, the description covers main behavior, side effects, and usage constraint. Missing details on error handling or exact dashboard update mechanics, but sufficient for basic usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds full semantic meaning for all 5 parameters: explains task_id, status (with enum values), message, summary (defaults to message), and caller_agent_id. This compensates completely for the schema gap.

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 is for Workers to report task completion to Admin, with a specific verb ('報告する') and resource ('タスク完了'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'report_task_progress' by focusing on final completion.

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 states 'Worker のみ使用可能' (only Worker can use), providing a clear usage constraint. Implicitly differentiates from progress reporting via sibling context, but does not explicitly list when not to use.

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