pol_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-destructive nature (generates a file) and the file contents. However, it does not specify whether the output file overwrites existing files, error handling, or any authorization needs. The description adds some value but lacks exhaustive behavioral details.

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 well-structured with a clear action sentence, content overview, and a separate Args/Returns section. It is relatively concise, though the inline docstring format slightly extends length. Generally efficient and front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential use case: input, output, and purpose. However, it omits behavioral details like file overwrite behavior and error conditions, making it adequate but not fully complete for an agent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by specifying 'Path to check result JSON' for result_path and 'Output HTML file path (default: auto-generated)' for output. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema types, though format constraints are omitted.

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 tool generates an HTML report from check results, listing specific content like summary, step table, and TIBET token chain. This verb+resource combination distinctly differentiates it from siblings like pol_check (performs checks) and pol_diff (diffs).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pol_quick_health or pol_template_info. Prerequisites (e.g., obtaining check results from pol_check) are implied but not stated, and there is no mention of when not to use the tool.

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