build_research_debug_report

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'builds a compact diagnostic report', but does not mention whether it is read-only, creates persistent state, requires authentication, or has side effects. The output is not described in terms of format or structure, and there is no mention of rate limits or error conditions.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations.

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?

Tool has 5 parameters (with nested objects), no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only a high-level summary of the report's contents without explaining input/output contracts, constraints, or relationship to parameters. For a complex diagnostic tool, this is insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, yet the description does not explain any parameters. It mentions 'queries, URLs, source quality, and verification gaps' but does not map these to schema properties (task, sources, requirements, verification, search_memory). The agent cannot infer parameter usage or required structure from the description alone.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'build' and resource 'diagnostic report for a research run', listing specific contents (queries, URLs, source quality, verification gaps). It accurately distinguishes from sibling tools, which focus on browsing, extraction, or single-task operations, not report generation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a diagnostic context but does not specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare to sibling tools that might share similar inputs (e.g., web_search, classify_source). Lacks explicit usage direction.

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