Generate report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no additional behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, permissions, performance). It does not contradict annotations, but also provides minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey.

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 wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and output formats without redundancy. This is appropriate for the tool's relative simplicity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, with 7 parameters and a wide range of perspectives and include/exclude options, the description is quite sparse. It does not explain the meaning of 'perspective' or the distinction between analysis, gaps, and prompts. The schema carries the burden, but the description could provide additional context for effective tool selection and invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema; it merely repeats the concept of 'gap analysis' and 'prompts' which are already reflected in include_gaps and include_prompts parameters. No extra value.

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 a specific verb ('Generate'), a specific resource ('report'), and the report's contents ('gap analysis and prompts'). It also specifies output formats ('markdown/json'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_prompts or analyze_zen_violations that focus on narrower outputs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling analysis tools, the lack of any usage context leaves the agent to infer when this aggregator is appropriate.

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