generate_report

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about output features (branding, charts, tables, ServiceNow links) and the two usage modes. No contradictions are evident; the tool likely does not modify persistent state. Value added beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences: first states purpose and formats, second provides context for invocation, third explains usage modes. No redundant information, efficient and well-structured.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the essential workflow. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., must have capability analysis results) or constraints (e.g., size limits), but it suffices for a management-ready report tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the relationship between 'content' (single capability) and 'sections' (multiple capabilities), clarifying the dual usage pattern beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 branded PDF or PPTX report from capability analysis results. It differentiates from most siblings by focusing on report generation, but does not explicitly distinguish from 'create_report' or 'scheduled_report' which might overlap.

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 says 'Call this after completing a scan, review, or audit', providing when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternatives like 'create_report' or 'scheduled_report', leaving the agent without exclusionary guidance.

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