Report public content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the report goes into a review queue and does not automatically mark the content as violating, which clarifies the side effect and non-immediacy. It still omits permission requirements, duplicate-report behavior, and what the caller gets back.

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?

A single compact sentence pair, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the important outcome semantics. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should do more, especially around the four required parameters and what happens after submission. It covers the action and the moderation-queue outcome adequately but leaves parameter and return expectations to inference.

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% across four required parameters. The description only indirectly implies target_type by naming topics and messages, and does not explain reporter_id, target_id, or the reason field's constraints (3-500 chars). It compensates only partially for a large documentation gap.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: report a public topic or public message (举报公开话题或公开消息). That is clearly distinguishable from moderation siblings such as review_public_report and list_public_reports. It stops short of naming an alternative or boundary explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'report' and the outcome note that the report enters a moderation queue, which tells the agent this is a submission rather than a review action. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no reference to siblings like review_public_report or block_public_actor.

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