write_report

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that a Markdown report is written in the invocation directory, but it omits the append/overwrite behavior and file naming, which are important side effects for a mutating tool.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose and output location.

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 an append parameter and no annotations, the description leaves key invocation details unexplained, such as whether reports accumulate across calls or overwrite previous content. The output schema helps with return values but not with file side effects.

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 echoes 'findings' as 'hallazgos' but adds no meaning for the append parameter or the expected format of the findings string.

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 action ('Guarda hallazgos') and a specific resource ('reporte Markdown en el directorio de invocacion'). It clearly differentiates this tool from the sibling analysis tools, none of which write a report.

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: call this tool to persist findings as a Markdown report after analysis. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no explanation of how repeated calls interact with the append parameter.

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