report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'snapshot comparison' but does not clarify if writing snapshots is a side effect (implied by 'no_save' parameter). The description lacks warnings about destructive potential or permissions needed.

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 sentence, under 20 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word is necessary and no filler.

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?

For a tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a basic understanding. However, the term 'butler-style' is undefined jargon that may confuse new users, and the snapshot mechanism is not explained, leaving minor gaps.

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 input schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, thus baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'generate' and the resource 'butler-style health report', and specifies key elements: snapshot comparison, warnings, notable changes, and suggested actions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'system_status' or 'doctor' which have different focuses.

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 usage for generating health reports with historical comparison but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'system_status' or 'doctor'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving ambiguity.

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