Report work

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false, destructiveHint false), so the description adds value by explaining the behavioral nuance: 'Completed with failing checks counts as a failed attempt' and that reporting does not end the session. It also mentions required evidence for completed and blocker for blocked, which are behavioral constraints beyond the schema.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action and outcome types, then adds the crucial workflow instruction. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and use.

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 core purpose and the required next step (next_work). It doesn't detail every parameter, but the schema covers that. It also lacks explicit mention of the sessionId requirement, but that is standard. The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description is sufficient for an agent to know when and how to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds semantic clarity for the completed outcome: 'Completed with failing checks counts as a failed attempt,' which clarifies how the validation object's 'passed' field interacts with the outcome. It also highlights that completed requires validation evidence and blocked requires a blocker, reinforcing schema descriptions.

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 function: 'Report a claimed unit' with a specific set of outcomes (progress, completed, failed, blocked, released). It distinguishes itself from siblings like next_work by naming the next step explicitly and by defining what each outcome means. The verb and resource are unambiguous.

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 gives clear guidance on the follow-up action: 'Then call next_work: a finished unit never ends the session.' This implies the tool is for reporting status and that the session continues. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know this is the reporting action in a workflow.

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