generate_parameter_report

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals the tool is safe, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds that the report is 'concise' and synthesizes from multiple sources, but doesn't disclose further behavioral traits like output format or limitations. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is fair.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and lists inputs without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the one-sentence description is not enough. It lacks details on output format, parameter relationships, and how this tool differs from reporting tools. An agent would struggle to select and invoke it correctly.

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 mentions 'target, candidates, evidence, and next steps' which maps to some parameters, but omits parameterNames and fails to explain the structure of candidateFunctions (e.g., score, file) or the expected format of evidence/nextSteps. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Generate' and a clear resource 'parameter-chain report', and lists the inputs (target, candidates, evidence, next steps) that define its scope. This distinguishes it from sibling reporting tools by focusing on parameter-chain analysis, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like get_rebuild_health_report or export_diagnostic_bundle. It only implies usage for generating a parameter-chain report, but lacks context on when that is appropriate or when to avoid it.

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