assemble_report

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does real work: it discloses the bundle composition, that decision_tables include 'any status, cross-branch' items, and the key behavioral trait that the tool never summarizes and leaves narrative to the agent. It does not mention permissions or size/performance limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoped tightly to output composition, with zero filler. The inline doc reference ('report-bundle-v2.md') is compact, though it leans on an external file the agent may not have.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description still usefully characterizes the bundle contents. It is nearly complete for a read/assembly tool, with the only real gap being the undocumented depth and include_edge_types parameters.

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. It gives root_id meaning ('root_id's part_of subtree') but says nothing about depth (default 4) or include_edge_types, leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific verb ('Collapse ... into a report bundle') and resource ('root_id's part_of subtree') and enumerates exactly what the bundle contains (nested sections, cross-links, decision_tables, per-section gaps). The explicit 'this never summarizes' clause disambiguates it from summarization-style siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the output shape (generate a report bundle from a subtree), and the 'agent writes the narrative' note clarifies the division of labor. But it never states when to pick this over siblings like briefing or overview, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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