render_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that output is self-contained and suitable for sharing, but does not mention safety traits (e.g., read-only, auth needs, rate limits). The behavioral information is partial but not misleading.

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 efficient, using bullet points for format options and a single sentence for the main purpose. It front-loads the core action. Some mixed language (Korean/English) may slightly reduce clarity but is acceptable given context.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity and an output schema, so description need not detail return values. It covers use cases and format choices well, but the lack of description for the required 'report' parameter leaves a significant gap. Overall adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, yet the description only adds meaning to the 'format' parameter by explaining use cases for each enum value. The required 'report' parameter is completely undocumented, leaving the agent without guidance on its structure or required fields.

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 the tool renders a ScanReport into a Korean report, with explicit verb ('renders') and resource. It lists four output formats, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scan_code or scan_path, which are scanning tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when a human-readable document for approval/reporting is needed') and provides detailed guidance for each format (markdown for body, html for self-contained email/PDF, sarif for CI integration). This effectively helps the agent decide between alternatives.

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