innoslate_report

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds two pieces of non-obvious context: output defaults to the workspace's reports/ folder unless out_dir is given, and an invalid report name yields a list of valid reports rather than an opaque failure.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and examples, then the naming caveat, then the output location. Nothing is padded, though the example list slightly crowds the opening.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: valid report name format, error recovery, and output destination. Only project_url and the 'document' identifier remain unexplained.

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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies report_name via examples and notes out_dir overrides the default reports/ location, but 'document' is only implied, 'project_url' is never addressed, and the default report name in the schema is not reinforced.

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 (download) and resource (Innoslate document reports) and anchors it with two concrete examples ('Basic Document Output (DOCX)', 'RTM Output (XLSX)') plus the UI path where the names come from. An agent can distinguish this from read/get/apply siblings without opening any schema.

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 through the UI navigation hint and the fallback 'if the name is wrong, the reply lists the reports this document offers', which tells the agent how to recover from a bad report_name. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative among the many siblings.

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