generate_report

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: the report is saved to disk, the output directory is created if needed, and the path is returned. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't clarify whether file overwriting occurs (which is relevant for idempotency claims).

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 well-structured and efficient. It opens with a clear purpose statement, follows with a context paragraph, and then lists parameters in an Args block. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool involves file I/O and complex inputs. With an output schema present, return values need not be detailed. The description covers input sources, output characteristics, and parameter behavior. It lacks clarity on file overwrite behavior and error handling, but given the annotations and schema, it is mostly complete.

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 compensate. It does so excellently: for each parameter, it provides a meaningful explanation (e.g., 'List of PackageReport objects', 'Human-readable project name', etc.) that adds semantic richness beyond the bare schema types/enums.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate'), resource ('polished HTML security report'), and scope ('from scan results'). It details report contents (executive summary, vulnerability table, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools (check_package, analyze_reachability) which are data collection tools, not report generators.

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 explicitly states it accepts aggregated results from check_package and analyze_reachability, giving clear context on when to use this tool (after those). While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, the dependency on prerequisites is clear. Alternatives are not applicable as siblings are prerequisites, not competitors.

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