curation_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It usefully adds a dependency on scan_inventory() and defines the report scope, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe side effects or error behavior. The report nature implies non-mutation but does not state it.

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 extremely concise: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second enumerates the report contents, and the third provides the prerequisite. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary repetition of schema or annotation data.

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 adequately covers purpose, report contents, and the required prior scan. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The only significant gap is parameter semantics, but given the minimal parameter surface and output schema, the overall context is strong.

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 never mentions the db_path parameter or its default/null behavior. With only one optional parameter, the description should have compensated by explaining what db_path means and how it affects the report, but it is completely absent.

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 and resource ('Generate a summary report from the inventory database') and explicitly lists the report contents (playlist/video counts, dead videos, duplicates, empty playlists). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling find_* tools, which target individual issue types.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Requires that scan_inventory() has been run first.' This provides strong contextual guidance for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the prerequisite plus the summary-report purpose is sufficient for a 4.

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