generate_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the process takes several minutes but does not disclose read-only nature, required permissions, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that generates content.

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 concise, with only two sentences and parameter definitions. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a behavioral note. No unnecessary 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention what the report contains or its format. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., notebook must exist) and does not explain how the notebook is used. The tool has moderate complexity and long duration, requiring more context.

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 parameter explanations add meaning beyond the schema by providing examples (e.g., prompt example). However, notebook_id lacks context on how to obtain it, and prompt could benefit from length or formatting constraints. Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates.

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 tool generates a written report from the notebook, listing example report types. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_summary or ask_notebook, which may produce similar outputs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The only usage hint is a note about long duration, but it does not specify prerequisites or when alternatives would be better.

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