generate_envelope_report

Does 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 reveals that it generates an HTML file, saves to the reports/ directory, and returns a dictionary with file path, metadata, and summary (not HTML content). It does not mention file overwriting behavior, required permissions, potential errors, or side effects like console output or logging. This is adequate but incomplete.

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 reasonably well-structured with sections for main description, arguments (with bullet-like formatting), returns, and an example. It front-loads the core purpose. While a bit verbose due to the docstring style, all content is relevant. Minor redundancy in the first sentence and the 'NEW PREFERRED METHOD' note could be combined, but overall efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters (one required), no enums, and an output schema exists, the description covers the main behavior and parameters thoroughly. It explains the return value structure (file path, metadata, summary) and provides an example. However, it does not detail what 'metadata' or 'summary' contain, which might require Agent to infer. With output schema present, this is minor.

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 provides detailed parameter explanations with defaults and purposes for all 7 parameters (signal_file, sampling_rate, filter_low, filter_high, max_freq, num_peaks, bearing_freqs, ctx). It explains the bearing_freqs dict format implicitly and gives an example. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 clearly states it generates a professional envelope analysis report as an HTML file, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It mentions it's the 'NEW PREFERRED METHOD' and saves to a reports/ directory, distinguishing it from inline content generation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling report tools like generate_fft_report, though the 'envelope' qualifier provides implicit 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?

The description provides an example usage and states it's the preferred method over inline content. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., generate_fft_report or generate_diagnostic_report_docx), nor does it mention prerequisites, error conditions, or context for use. The example helps but is not comprehensive.

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