report_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the scope ('current repository') and the two return values (path and last update time), which is useful context beyond the structured annotations. However, it does not elaborate on behavior like whether multiple reports are returned or if the path is a directory or file. Given the annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, compact sentence in Chinese that directly states the resource and the returned data. There is no fluff, and the key information is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter informational tool.

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 simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose. It mentions both the path and the update time, which are the likely output fields. However, it does not clarify whether 'report' refers to a specific file or a directory, or whether multiple reports are handled. Given the low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete but leaves a small ambiguity.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% schema_description_coverage. The description's mention of 'report file path' and 'last update time' aligns with the expected output, and there is no parametric ambiguity to resolve. A baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is warranted, and the description adds value by framing the return data.

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 states a specific resource ('report file path') and the information returned ('last update time') in the current repository. It clearly differentiates from siblings like report_write_decision or report_external_choice, which involve writing or choice-making. An agent can understand the tool's purpose without opening the schema.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is purely declarative and does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or relationships with sibling tools (e.g., report_write_decision or review_read). An agent must infer that a path/timestamp query is intended for finding report files, but no explicit routing is provided.

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