Generate test report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that 'allure' writes allure-report/ from allure-results/ using a local CLI that is 'never downloaded', and it enumerates the possible outcome statuses including setup_required, which implicitly warns about missing prerequisites. It does not say whether an existing allure-report is overwritten or what happens on partial generation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then compact per-value clauses and a status list, with no filler. It is dense but every sentence carries information; the status enumeration is slightly terse but earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still summarizes status outcomes. For a 2-parameter, zero-required tool this is nearly complete; only edge behavior (overwriting existing reports, prerequisite failure handling) is unaddressed.

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% and the reporter enum is fully documented in the schema; the description's per-value explanation largely restates that enum text rather than adding new syntax or constraints. projectRoot is left entirely to the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Locate or generate a visual test report') and then splits the behavior per reporter value, making the locate-vs-generate distinction explicit. This clearly separates it from siblings like score_test_quality (analysis) and run_playwright_test (execution).

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?

It gives clear context for which reporter value to choose and what each one does ('quality'/'html' locate, 'allure' generates), which is real routing guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as check_test_prerequisites or score_test_quality, and offers no exclusions.

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