cw_report_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it doesn't say whether the reported state persists, overwrites prior state, expires, or how conflicts/partial views are handled. It also references "the CakeScript tools" as an external, unspecified precedent, adding no verifiable behavior for an agent that lacks that history.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the payload contract; the shape spec is dense but every field listed is load-bearing. Only the "like the CakeScript tools did" aside is wasted words.

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 description covers the hardest part, the state payload, but with no annotations and no output schema it should also explain persistence semantics, what the topic enum scopes, and how this differs from cw_save_state/cw_probe_state. As written an agent can build a plausible payload but not predict the tool's effect.

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 50%: note and state are documented, so baseline would be 3, and the description genuinely earns its place by spelling out the internal shape of the otherwise free-form state object (tracks/notes/now/tempo/loop/project). But the two undocumented parameters, topic (a 6-value enum) and source, get no explanation of what they select or override.

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 does convey a specific action (reporting an agent observation back so later calls can reuse it) and adds scope with "instead of re-probing." However, the verb "send back" is vague about what actually happens to the payload, and nothing distinguishes this from near-identical siblings such as cw_save_state, cw_document_state, or cw_list_state.

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?

It gives a rationale for use — report once so subsequent calls avoid re-probing — which implies when to call it. But it never names an alternative (cw_probe_state, cw_save_state, cw_get_state) or states when not to call it, so the routing decision against those siblings is left to inference.

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