Reports_createReport

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that the tool runs in the Kuudo deployment rather than locally, which is useful, but it omits side effects, prerequisites, return behavior, or whether creation is asynchronous. 'Catalog entry' further muddies the behavioral picture.

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 short and mostly to the point. However, the opening 'Catalog entry' sentence is unhelpful filler and the most important information ('Creates a report') is placed last rather than front-loaded. The sentence about running in Kuudo is useful but the overall structure is suboptimal.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and an open-ended additionalProperties schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a report is, what parameters might be passed, what the return value is, or how the agent should interact with a tool that runs in a remote deployment. An agent would struggle to invoke this 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?

The schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter descriptions to provide. The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning when none exist; the additionalProperties: true field is structured information, not something the description must repeat.

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 and resource ('Creates a report'), which is clear enough on its own. However, the phrase 'Catalog entry' is cryptic and adds no purpose, and the description does not distinguish this from the closely related Reports_createReportSchedule sibling. The purpose is minimally viable but vague.

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 Reports_createReportSchedule or Reports_getReport. The statement 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' hints at an environmental context but does not help an agent decide between this and sibling tools.

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