report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only that output is markdown. It says nothing about whether the call is read-only, how expensive or slow a 'whole picture' aggregation is, or what sections the report contains. The single format hint is the only behavioral content.

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?

It is one short sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy. There is no structure, no front-loaded verb, and no indication of what the report covers.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of information about what a caller receives, and 'the whole picture' is undefined. An agent cannot tell what data the markdown will contain, how large it will be, or when this is preferable to the more specific sibling tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-related gaps exist because the schema is empty.

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 "The whole picture as markdown" essentially restates the tool name 'report' plus an output format. It never states a verb, what subject is being reported on, or which data source is aggregated. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like ranking or recommend, which could all plausibly produce 'the whole picture'.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives among list_models, probe, ranking, or recommend. The agent must guess whether this replaces or supplements those tools. No exclusion or routing information is present at all.

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