Write a versioned review report

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, consistent with writing files. The description adds that the report pair is deterministic and preserves certain elements, but omits behavioral details like overwrite behavior, directory creation, or versioning meaning. With annotations providing core safety info, the description adds moderate context.

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 concise sentences: the first states the primary action and format, the second lists preserved content. No redundant information; every word adds value.

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?

Given high complexity (8 params, nested objects, output schema exists), the description provides a high-level summary but lacks details on parameter semantics, overwrite behavior, versioning, file path conventions, and max size handling. The output schema covers return values, but the description does not fully cover the tool's operational context.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It mentions 'Markdown and JSON report pair inside a repository-relative output directory' (hinting at outputDirectory and repositoryRoot) and 'confirmed, suspected, and inconclusive findings' (hinting at bundle/validationResult). However, it fails to describe other critical parameters like bundle, reviewMeta, overwrite, and maxReportSizeBytes, providing minimal added meaning over the schema.

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 title 'Write a versioned review report' and description clearly state the verb 'Render' and the resource 'Markdown and JSON report pair'. It specifies the output is deterministic and what findings are preserved. No sibling tools exist, so differentiation is not needed.

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 use after validation ('Render validated Agent findings'), providing clear context. No sibling tools exist to compare against, and no explicit when-not or alternative guidance is necessary given this.

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