generate_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 does not disclose behavioral traits like whether the report is generated on-the-fly, how long it takes, or if it modifies any data. The phrase 'generate' implies creation, but no details on side effects or storage.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the action and key components.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose and contents. However, it lacks behavioral information and usage context, making it minimally adequate.

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 100% with a single 'lenses' parameter described as 'Report focus areas' and enum values. The description adds 'executive summary, priority actions, and competitor insights' but does not explain how lenses map to these outputs. There is a mismatch: 'competitor insights' is not in the enum.

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 'Generate an AI intelligence report' (verb+resource) and lists contents (executive summary, priority actions, competitor insights). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_reports or get_gap_analysis, which offer similar report outputs.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to generate a new report vs. list existing ones). No prerequisites or scenarios are indicated.

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