ReportRaja

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful clarification — "Nothing stored" — which preempts the misleading "create_*" name by confirming no persistence occurs and no external calls are made. It still doesn't describe the shape of the returned report.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the build action and input list come first, and the non-persistence caveat is appended where it matters most. Nothing is padded or restated.

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 output schema, the description should explain what the tool actually returns (a text report, structured sections, a template id?) and how it relates to render_report_text. It covers inputs adequately but leaves the output contract and sibling separation 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 6 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It names four of the six concepts (accomplishments, hours_logged, blockers, next_week), and the remaining two (client_name, week_start) are implied by "weekly client report," but no format details (date format for week_start, hours units) are supplied.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Build a weekly client report") and enumerates the input material it draws on (accomplishments, hours, blockers, next-week plans). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like render_report_text or report_templates, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone whether this builds, renders, or templates the report.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools that are obvious alternatives (render_report_text, report_templates, week_bounds). The only contextual signal is the trailing "Nothing stored" clause, which implies a pure computation but does not say when to pick this over rendering a template.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that output is plain text (a useful behavioral fact), but says nothing about formatting rules, length limits, or whether it writes anywhere.

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 tightly written sentence with the key fact (plain text output) front-loaded. Nothing is wasted.

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 6-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It leaves the agent without parameter guidance and with no sense of what the rendered text contains or how it is delimited.

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 6 parameters, and the description supplies no parameter meaning of its own. It only cross-references create_weekly_report, which is indirect compensation and forces the agent to open another tool's schema to understand inputs.

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?

States a specific verb (render) and resource (weekly report) with a clear output format (plain text), which separates it from the create sibling. It does not fully explain how it differs in effect from create_weekly_report, but the render-vs-create distinction is legible.

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 parenthetical 'same inputs as create_weekly_report' implies this is the formatting counterpart to the creation tool, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over create_weekly_report or report_templates. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the templates are built-in and enumerates them, but says nothing about ordering, filtering, or whether custom templates could appear.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the example list earning its place by previewing expected output. No 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only lookup with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete; the enumeration of template kinds even partly compensates for the absent output schema. Only minor gaps remain around ordering or custom-template behavior.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose semantics need explaining, and the description correctly implies a no-input lookup.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (built-in report templates), and the parenthetical names concrete examples (freelancer, agency, standup), so the scope is unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create_weekly_report or render_report_text.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. Usage is only implied: enumerating template names hints this is a discovery/selection step before creating or rendering a report.

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

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the description's job is to add behavior beyond that. It does add a genuinely important trait: weeks are Monday-start (Monday..Sunday), which an agent could otherwise wrongly assume is Sunday-start. It omits timezone/UTC handling and the shape of the returned bounds, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

One sentence, no filler, with the key constraint (Monday..Sunday) and the input format front-loaded. Nothing redundant with the title.

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 small utility with annotations covering safety, the description is close to adequate, but with no output schema it should still indicate the return shape (e.g., a start/end pair) and timezone semantics. Those gaps are modest rather than severe.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden — and it does, specifying the date format (YYYY-MM-DD), which is the only real ambiguity for the single required parameter. It does not clarify whether the date is interpreted as UTC or local.

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?

It states a concrete computation (week bounds) over a specific input (the week containing a given date), which is enough to separate it from the report-generation siblings. It is not tautological — 'week_bounds' alone would not convey the Monday..Sunday convention or the date-based lookup.

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 is purely definitional: it never says when to reach for this tool versus create_weekly_report, render_report_text, or report_templates, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical callers. Usage is only obliquely inferable from the semantics.

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