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

With only destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description carries some burden. It specifies the destination (Inbox) and allowed statuses, but does not disclose whether this action modifies the screen's actual status or merely sends a notification/report. This ambiguity limits transparency about side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action, resource, allowed values, and destination efficiently. Every part earns its place.

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 tool, it covers the basics: what, where, allowed values. However, it lacks any description of the return value (no output schema), does not mention project_id, and does not clarify whether it updates the screen entity or only sends an inbox message. Given the sibling set includes similar reporting tools, a bit more context would help.

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 67%, and the description adds no new parameter semantics. The status values are already listed in the schema, and project_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not explain the role of project_id or how screen/status relate, leaving a clear 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 uses a specific verb ('report') with a clear resource ('SCREEN's status') and destination ('→ Inbox'), and lists the allowed status values. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like report_build_status or report_milestone_progress, which target different resources.

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 implies usage: when you need to report a screen's status to the Inbox. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., report_build_status) or any exclusions. It does not state prerequisites or 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.