build_report

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions 'Always runs' but does not explain file overwrite behavior, permission requirements, failure modes, or side effects on other data. The report generation might create or overwrite files, but this is not disclosed. The description is too vague to set accurate agent expectations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action and output path immediately. It is concise and avoids filler. However, it may be too terse given the complexity of the tool and its parameters, but it earns a 4 for efficiency and structure.

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 complexity (a free-form brief object, multiple report sections, output file generation) and the absence of annotations, schema descriptions, and an output schema visible here, the description is incomplete. It does not cover the brief's schema, return value, error handling, or prerequisites, leaving an agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 explain the parameters. It references <work_dir> and <study> in the path template, giving some meaning, but does not explain the 'brief' object structure or its required fields. The default for work_dir is null per the schema, but the description does not clarify how that is handled. Minimal semantic value added.

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 renders a study brief into a report file with a specified path and enumerates the report's contents (goal recap, fixture spec, target-vs-achieved table, cross-check, compliance). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like save_brief or load_brief, which handle brief persistence rather than report generation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Always runs' is ambiguous—it might imply no prerequisites or unconditional execution, but it does not clarify selection criteria or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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