Generate Report — Unified Dispatcher (V2)

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open-world. The description adds that it dispatches to 12 renderers and includes an example request. It does not elaborate on side effects, error behavior, or rate limits, but given the annotations, the description adds moderate context.

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 relatively short and front-loaded but contains a cut-off sentence ('see…') which reduces clarity. The example is helpful. Overall, it is moderately concise but the structural flaw of an incomplete sentence detracts from readability.

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 complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description lacks sufficient guidance. It provides an example and lists report types, but does not explain many parameters, expected output, or error handling. The incomplete sentence further reduces completeness.

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 27%, so the description should compensate. It provides a partial example and lists report_type enum explicitly. It notes that required fields vary by type (chart for most, chart1+chart2 for synastry), but the sentence cuts off. Many parameters (spread, seed, etc.) are not explained, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 it is a single endpoint over 12 type-specific renderers, listing all report types. It distinguishes from sibling tools (reports_natal, etc.) by positioning itself as a unified alternative: 'one method instead of 12.' The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 explains that this tool is a single endpoint replacing 12 type-specific tools, providing SDK ergonomics. It mentions that required fields vary by report type. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this unified endpoint over the individual report generation tools, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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