report_failure

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it records a result, but does not explain side effects (e.g., overwriting, idempotency, validation) or requirements (e.g., authentication). This is insufficient for a write 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?

The description is a single concise sentence. However, it sacrifices essential information (parameter explanations, behavioral notes). While efficient, it is too brief to be fully helpful.

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 has 5 parameters (4 required) with no schema coverage. Despite having an output schema, the lack of parameter descriptions and behavioral transparency means the agent cannot reliably invoke this tool. The description is incomplete for its complexity.

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 0%. The description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (module, platforms, topology_yaml, error, stage). An agent cannot know format or constraints, making correct invocation unlikely.

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 action 'Record a negative result' and specifies the target 'compatibility matrix'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like query_compatibility or validate_in_lab by focusing on reporting failures.

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 implies usage when a combo fails but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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