render_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output format (HTML and base64), the pure re-render behavior, that nothing is re-scored, the session-finalization requirement, and that the cache does not survive a server restart. This is a rich behavioral context that goes well beyond what schema or annotations could 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output handling details and limitations. Every sentence adds distinct, non-redundant information: what it renders, how the output is delivered, what it does not do, and when it can be used. No filler or 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, output format, workflow context (relation to submit_answers), and constraints (session finalization, cache volatility). It offers enough context for an agent to decide when to call it. However, the lack of explicit parameter documentation leaves a noticeable gap, especially given that the schema also provides no descriptions.

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%, and the description does not explicitly explain the roles of `title` or `result_id`. The context implies `result_id` identifies the finalized assessment, but `title` is completely unexplained. The agent must infer parameter meanings from the tool name and general context, which is insufficient.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Re-render a finalized assessment as a self-contained HTML page' and enumerates the exact content included (meta panel, six-domain summary, per-domain judgement, algorithm trail, evidence, style, provenance). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting 'pure re-render of the artifact submit_answers already stamped — nothing is re-scored.'

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: the assessment must have been finalized this session, and it clarifies that this is a re-render only, not re-scoring, implying other tools handle scoring or modifications. It also advises how to handle output (display inline or publish as artifact). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for export or scoring, so the alternative distinction is implied rather than fully explicit.

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