Build a report

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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false; the description adds real behaviour: gated on explicit user request, confirmation-based section selection, conditional hypothesis section, format defaults, and that save_to writes into the workspace. Gaps remain around `overwrite` (which can replace an existing file, a write hazard the annotations do not flag) and what the call returns before confirmation.

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-loaded with the gating condition and scope in the first sentence, then parameter semantics, then content rules — every sentence carries information. The telegraphic fragments ('format html (default) or markdown; save_to writes a file in the workspace') are dense but slightly clipped rather than flowingly clear.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and sparse schema descriptions, the definition covers the main inputs and content rules but not the full two-phase flow it implies: the confirm → confirmation_token → build sequence is only hinted at, and `overwrite` behaviour plus what the built report looks like are unstated. Adequate to invoke correctly in the common path, incomplete for the file-overwrite path.

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 coverage is only 17% (just confirmation_token), so the description must carry the load and largely does: `include` = result ids with default 'current analysis', `format` = html default or markdown, `save_to` = writes a file to the workspace. `title` and `overwrite` are left undocumented, keeping it short of a 5.

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 and resource ('Builds a report') plus the source scope ('from results created in this session'), which no sibling tool shares — the nearest neighbours (create_visualization, describe, job_status) do different things. It also disambiguates what the report contains (hypothesis write-up vs exploration), so an agent knows exactly what artifact this produces.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'only when the user asks for one', which is exactly the gate an agent needs before calling a non-idempotent write tool. It also notes the user must confirm the sections. It doesn't name alternatives or state what to do when the user asks for a report with no prior results, but there are no competing report tools to route between.

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