generate_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: Markdown output, full vs quick modes, internal use of check_physics_contracts, optional silent-failure detection, and save-to-file vs return-as-text behavior. It does not mention timeout behavior, but this is a minor gap for a report generation tool.

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 well-organized with mode descriptions, an Args list, and a Returns note. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, though it contains some redundancy between the mode explanation and the Args section, plus the misleading kpis_json reference.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and a large sibling list, this description provides substantial context: when to use each mode, what the report includes, and how output is returned. The main gap is the kpis_json/contracts_json inconsistency, which could prevent an agent from correctly invoking Quick mode.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains capsule_id, contracts_json, report_title, output_path, and include_silent_failures in plain language. However, it omits timeout entirely, introduces a phantom kpis_json parameter, and gives contracts_json contradictory usage guidance, reducing reliability.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Generate'), a specific resource ('simulation report in Markdown format'), and enumerates the exact data sources included. It also differentiates from sibling tools by framing itself as a combined report aggregator rather than a raw data extractor.

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?

Two modes are described with conditions for each: Full mode uses capsule_id, Quick mode uses contracts_json and kpis_json directly. However, Quick mode references a kpis_json parameter that does not exist in the input schema, and contracts_json is later described as 'Only used when capsule_id is provided,' which contradicts its role in Quick mode.

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