generate_move_root_cause_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 indicates the tool returns JSON evidence and Markdown, which suggests a read-only reporting operation, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, input prerequisites, or any other behavioral characteristics that an agent should know.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the output format and scope. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is relatively simple: one required parameter and an output schema. The description states what it returns and that it targets one stock move. However, without usage guidance or behavioral details, an agent may not know when to choose this over the many sibling investigation/report tools. It is adequate but not complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for move_id, and the description only indirectly connects the parameter to the investigation by mentioning 'one stock move.' This adds a small amount of context beyond the bare type/title, but it does not fully compensate for the missing schema documentation. The single parameter is simple and self-explanatory, so the modest semantic contribution is adequate.

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 names a specific action ('Return JSON evidence and Markdown') and a specific scope ('for one stock move investigation'). It is clear and not a tautology, and it distinguishes this report-level tool from product-level report siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named analyze_stock_move_root_cause.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_stock_move_root_cause, get_stock_move_detail, or the other report generators. The phrase 'for one stock move investigation' implies a narrow use case, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are stated.

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