debt_generate_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does not state whether generating the report scans a directory, writes a file, returns content, or only works with an API key. The phrase 'Pro feature' hints at access requirements but leaves the actual side effects and output behavior unclear.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrasing. It conveys the core purpose quickly, though 'comprehensive' and 'with metrics' add only modest value and could be more concretely specified.

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 core invocation is reasonably clear: pass a project directory to generate a tech debt report. However, with no output schema and no annotation coverage, an agent cannot tell what form the report takes, whether output is returned or written, or whether api_key is required for normal operation. This leaves meaningful gaps for a tool with two parameters.

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 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The 'directory' parameter is described in the schema as 'Project directory', while 'api_key' remains undocumented and the description never clarifies its relationship to the Pro feature. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 the action ('generate') and the resource ('tech debt report'), and adds useful specifics like 'comprehensive' and 'with metrics'. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like debt_scan_todos or debt_prioritize, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives in the debt_* sibling family or related reporting tools. The only contextual hint is '(Pro feature)', which implies a licensing requirement but does not explain the condition for choosing this tool over others.

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