generate_forensic_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important behavioral fact: the default is read-only and file writes are gated behind an environment variable plus a flag. It stops short of saying where files land, whether an existing report is overwritten, or what the call returns, which leaves meaningful gaps for a tool with side effects.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed immediately by the safety-relevant write gate. No filler, no restating of the tool name.

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 19-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin: it explains format and the write gate but not the report's required structure, how evidence entries relate to hypotheses, or what happens to optional sections. An agent can start the call but must reverse-engineer the payload shape from the schema alone.

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 only 21% across 19 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It touches the format choice and the write flag, but says nothing about the many evidence, findings, hypothesis, and address fields that make up the report body, nor about the confidence enum semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Generate a structured forensic investigation report') plus the output formats, so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not distinguish itself from nearby reporting siblings such as save_finding or equivalence_record, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 write precondition (RETRACE_ALLOW_WRITE=1 plus write=true) is a genuinely useful invocation rule that tells the agent when a write will actually occur. However, there is no guidance on when to call this versus save_finding, or whether it should be invoked at the end of an investigation rather than incrementally, so usage is only implied.

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