pcb_generate_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and a prerequisite, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the returned report contains, or any side effects/error conditions. The dependency is useful but insufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and object. No filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description includes a critical prerequisite, but it lacks any mention of output/return behavior or alternatives among sibling report generators. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters, including the format enum values, so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. The prerequisite is relevant to session_id but does not enhance the schema's parameter documentation.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('generate') and names the resource ('structured report from design review results'), clearly stating the primary function. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from sibling report generators like pcb_generate_design_review_report, pcb_generate_html_report, or pcb_generate_docx_report.

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 says 'Must run pcb_run_design_review first', giving a clear prerequisite for usage. It does not mention when to prefer this over the other report-generation siblings, but the requirement is a solid usage signal.

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