report_workflow_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: records per-agent learning telemetry and enqueues an approval-gated draft. It also explains optional run_id for telemetry grouping. No contradictions.

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 relatively concise given the complexity, front-loading the primary action and then detailing inputs and effects. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tightened without losing information.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, some nested objects, and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers input semantics, behavior, and side effects. It addresses required and optional parameters, and explains the approval-gated draft lifecycle. No obvious gaps.

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 60%, and the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains the agents array structure (id/label, tier, model, result fields), details consensus parameter usage, and clarifies workflow_name origin. Workspace_root is not described, but main parameters are well-covered.

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's purpose: 'Report the result of a Threnody-emitted Dynamic Workflow run' and specifies the required inputs (workflow_name, agents array). It distinguishes from sibling tools like inspect_status or approval_queue_list by focusing on workflow result reporting and telemetry recording.

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 explains when to use the tool (after a workflow_emit handoff) and what happens as a result (enqueues approval-gated draft). It mentions optional consensus handling, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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