maintenance_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: what sources the report draws from and the explicit requirement to show the entire report to the user rather than summarizing it. It leaves open whether generating it performs live lookups or how stale the data may be, but the core behavioral contract is stated.

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 sentences with zero filler; the resource and its scope come first, followed by the output-handling instruction. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the job of enumerating what the report contains and how to present it. The only meaningful gap is the absence of any routing guidance relative to the sibling maintenance tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The enumerated report contents do add context about what the parameterless invocation produces.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Build the monthly maintenance report") with an enumerated content scope covering Apple API changes, deprecated endpoints, vulnerable dependencies, and tool changes. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling maintenance_status or maintenance_confirm_review, so the agent can't tell from the description alone why it would pick this one.

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 word "monthly" implies the cadence at which this should be used, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of the two sibling tools. Usage must be inferred rather than read.

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