Generar informe

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does not meet it. It never says whether the report is written to disk (and overwritten if the path exists) or returned inline, what permissions are needed, or whether generation is read-only with respect to the run data. The only disclosure is that generated HTML is self-contained.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource before listing formats, with no filler. The format enumeration is dense but each item carries information; nothing could be cut without losing content.

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 four-parameter tool with no required inputs, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition covers format selection well and output_path partly. It leaves out the meaning of run_id, the write-versus-return behavior, and any indication of the default run selection, which an agent needs to call 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 coverage is 75%, so format, output_path, and include_suppressed are already documented in the schema. The description adds real meaning for the format enum by explaining what each format is for (self-contained HTML, SARIF for code-scanning platforms), but the undocumented run_id parameter, and what happens when it is omitted, is never addressed.

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 ("Genera el informe de una corrida") and enumerates the four supported output formats, including the concrete standards (SARIF 2.1.0) and their consumers. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like runs_list or findings_query, though it never names those siblings to reinforce the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: by naming GitHub/GitLab code scanning and VS Code as targets for SARIF, it hints at which format to pick for which consumer. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus e.g. findings_query, no prerequisites, and no guidance on calling it only after a run completes.

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