Generate a Markdown summary report for a slicing run and save it to the run's directory, providing a readable overview of the slice results.
Write a Markdown summary report into a run directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a file-writing side effect but doesn't disclose whether the report overwrites an existing file, what the report contains, what the return value is, or whether the run must be in a completed state. For a mutation-style operation this is a thin disclosure.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The verb, object, and destination all appear early. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.
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?
Incomplete for a tool that performs file output. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent lacks essential information: what the Markdown report contains, the file naming/location convention, whether it overwrites, and how it differs from the plural sibling u1_export_runs_report. Several critical facts are absent.
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%, so the description must compensate for run_id. It doesn't: the description never mentions run_id, a run, or what the report will contain. The parameter name is self-evidently an identifier, but the description adds no semantic detail about how the run is resolved or what output is produced.
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 states a specific verb ('Write'), resource ('a Markdown summary report'), and destination ('into a run directory'). It's clear about what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling u1_export_runs_report (plural), so an agent can't easily tell them apart without inferring the singular vs. plural distinction.
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 on when to use this tool versus the closely named u1_export_runs_report, nor versus u1_get_run or u1_get_run_logs. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing cues, leaving the agent to guess the correct selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.