generate_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal two important traits: the operation is queued asynchronously and repeated calls are idempotent. Still, it does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, failure behavior, or whether the report must already exist.

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 one compact sentence that leads with the core action and then adds the idempotency caveat. There is no filler or redundant 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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description conveys the core behavior and idempotency. However, it lacks explicit usage context relative to sibling tools and does not clarify the relationship between report_id and a 'confirmed' report, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding when and how to call it.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on report_id. The only parameter is minimally labeled 'Report Id', but the description neither explains what value it expects, how it maps to a confirmed report, nor any format constraints. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of guidance.

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 action: placing a confirmed report into a background queue, with an idempotency guarantee. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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 phrase '已确认的报告' implies the tool is for reports that have already been confirmed, giving some contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool over siblings like create_report_plan or update_report_outline, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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