report_qor_assessment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about behavior: whether the call is read-only, what preconditions it needs, how expensive it is, or what the returned score means (thresholds, pass/fail framing). Only the verb 'report' weakly implies a read operation.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, so it is concise, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing. The key qualifier is buried in parentheses rather than front-loaded as actionable guidance.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description is the only place to explain what the assessment returns and what the agent should do with the resulting quality score. It omits preconditions and result interpretation entirely, leaving the definition incomplete for a 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there are no names or formats to clarify; this is the baseline case where the description cannot be expected to add parameter meaning. Nothing is missing here.

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 names the action (run a report) and glosses the acronym QoR as 'overall design quality score', which distinguishes it from sibling report tools like report_power, report_drc and report_methodology. However, it is largely a restatement of the tool name and never specifies what the assessment covers or produces.

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?

There is no indication of when this tool should be used, what design state is required (e.g., an open project with completed synthesis/implementation), or which alternative report tools to prefer for narrower checks. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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