retention_generate_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool generates a report and is a Pro feature; it does not say whether the report is returned or written to disk, whether there are side effects, or what authentication/entitlement checks are required.

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 short and front-loaded, with the verb and object appearing before the parenthetical 'Pro feature' note. Every word earns its place, though the brevity leaves little room for behavioral or usage context.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, a single sentence is insufficient. The agent is left without information about what the report contains, how the provided directory and API key are used, and what the return value or output artifact looks like.

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?

The description adds no direct meaning to the `directory` or `api_key` parameters. The schema already documents `directory` as 'Project directory', while `api_key` is undocumented; 'Pro feature' only weakly hints at why an API key might be needed without explaining either parameter's format or role.

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 ('Generate') and a specific resource ('retention compliance report'), clearly matching the tool name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like retention_generate_policy or retention_add_automation, but the noun 'report' makes the intended deliverable apparent.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. 'Pro feature' signals licensing/entitlement context but does not tell an agent when to choose this tool over policy generation, automation, or other report-generation siblings.

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