generate_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the report auto-opens in the browser (a side effect) and that it is self-contained, which is valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations would provide. It doesn't mention if it requires prior data or if it's safe, but it does add useful behavior.

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 well-structured paragraph that starts with the core purpose, then lists contents, then gives usage guidance. It is not overly verbose, but the list of contents could be trimmed for brevity. Still, each sentence 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?

The tool is relatively simple with a single optional parameter and no output schema, so the description covers the essential information: what it produces, when to call it, and a key behavior (auto-open). It does not explain the return format in detail, but that's not required given no output schema. It's adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100% as the only parameter 'title' is described as 'Optional custom title'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 generates an HTML test report with embedded screenshots, and lists the specific contents (pass/fail results, screenshots, exploration findings, etc.), which distinguishes it from siblings like take_screenshot or get_coverage.

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 explicitly says to call this after executing scenarios and explorations, which provides clear when-to-use guidance. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it loses a point for lack of exclusions or alternatives.

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