dfm_generate_report

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the internal steps (triggers generation, uploads to storage, sends via Resend) and the admin-only permission. It also warns about a precondition. It could further clarify idempotency or side effects like whether duplicate calls are safe.

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 extremely concise: a one-line summary, two lines of process, and an important note. Every sentence adds value and the key info is front-loaded. No redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear process) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers the main steps and a key prerequisite. However, it omits potential errors, return value format, and any alternative scenarios, leaving some gaps for a fully autonomous agent.

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 single parameter request_id is fully described in the input schema with an example format. The description does not add any additional semantic information about the parameter, so it relies entirely on the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'generate' and the resource 'PDF report and email it to the customer'. It also adds 'admin-only' as a constraint, distinguishing it from other dfm tools like dfm_check_status. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 includes a prerequisite ('Ensure all findings have been added before generating') and an admin-only restriction, providing some guidance on when to use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as dfm_deliver_report, missing an opportunity for when-not-to guidelines.

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