report_generate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses supported formats and Markdown contents (severity table, OWASP matrix, remediation checklist), but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 sentences: first states core purpose, second lists supported formats with relevant details. No wasted words, appropriate length for the tool's simplicity.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description covers input and output formats but does not specify the return value type (e.g., string, file) or error conditions. Adequate but leaves some gaps for an agent.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that Markdown output includes severity table, OWASP matrix, and remediation checklist, which goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 'Generate formatted security report from findings array', using a specific verb (generate) and resource (report). It distinguishes from siblings like report_compare and report_full_audit by specifying it works from a findings array, making its purpose unique.

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 implies usage when a formatted report is needed from findings, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like report_full_audit or report_owasp_compliance. However, the tool name and sibling context provide enough clarity for appropriate selection.

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