create_report_from_dataset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what gets generated (pages, cards, charts, theme) and the return shape, but says nothing about whether an existing .Report folder is overwritten, whether the operation is idempotent, or what permissions/paths are required for a filesystem-writing tool.

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 purpose sentence followed by a scannable use-case list and Args/Returns blocks. Slightly verbose in restating defaults that already live in the schema, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 the Returns block is a bonus rather than a necessity, and the generation behavior and parameters are well covered. The remaining gap is mutation semantics (overwrite/idempotency) for a tool that writes report scaffolding with no annotations to fall back on.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: all six parameters (pbip_path, page_name, visual_count, theme, include_card, inspector) are explained with intent and stated defaults. The one weak spot is 'inspector', described only as 'Optional model inspector' with no indication of what object or behavior is expected.

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?

States a specific verb (scaffold) and artifact (.Report folder plus layout) derived from an existing semantic model, which clearly separates it from model-creation siblings like create_semantic_model_from_schema. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the arguably overlapping design_report_page_from_requirements, so it falls 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?

The 'Use this tool when the user asks to' list gives concrete trigger conditions (create a new .Report folder for an existing dataset, generate starter pages). However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance, e.g. versus design_report_page_from_requirements or edit_report_visual.

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