save_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it largely does: it discloses the on-disk path convention, three output formats with their intended uses (HTML printable to PDF with no external CDN, MD for editing, JSON for history/redo), and the GVSKB_REPORT_DIR env var for a shared folder. It does not address overwrite behavior or permission requirements, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action and return value in the first sentence, then structures the format details as a tight bullet list. Every sentence earns its place; no repetition of schema content.

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 no annotations, a nested-object schema, and the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be restated here), the description covers the missing pieces an agent needs: purpose vs sibling, destination path, format selection, and the shared-folder override.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the field docs by spelling out the save convention and filename pattern, the format extensions, and the env-var override that governs where output_dir effectively resolves.

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+resource ('점검 보고서를 파일로 저장') and even names the return value (save path). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling render_report, explaining that render_report returns only the body string while this persists to a file, so the agent can tell them apart without opening either 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?

Explicitly frames the when-to-use: if the report would otherwise vanish in the chat window and you need it for approval/reporting, use this tool. It names the concrete alternative (render_report) and the condition that selects save_report, leaving nothing to inference.

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