render_report

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: narrative input is escaped and treated as commentary, and observed tables cannot be overridden. That tells the agent the tool's write scope is constrained, which is genuinely useful.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the action front-loaded and the constraint second. No filler, no repetition of the name or schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a mutating/exporting tool with three completely undocumented parameters and no usage context, the description is too thin. It should at minimum explain what audit_id and before_audit_id select.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints that 'narrative' is escaped commentary but says nothing about audit_id, before_audit_id, or the structure of the narrative object. The agent is left to infer required inputs from the schema alone.

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 concrete verb (fill/export) and resource (report), plus the output formats (offline HTML, Markdown, JSON). It distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings like get_report_context, though it never names them explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites stated for the template, and no mention of alternatives among the eight sibling tools. An agent must infer that this is the final rendering step after auditing.

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