Make a team report

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

With annotations already covering the safety profile, the description still adds substantial behavior: exact write scope (.scenescout/, team-report.html and team-report/), replacement of the prior team report (confirming the idempotentHint), the contents of the adjacent evidence folder including SHA-256 manifest, and explicit 'sends nothing anywhere and touches no browser' (reinforcing openWorldHint=false). This is unusually complete disclosure of side effects.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the second and third sentences are long laundry lists enumerating report sections and folder contents. Much of that inventory is plausible detail, yet it slows the agent scanning for the decision-relevant facts (what is written, where, and that nothing is sent).

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 are already documented, and the description still supplies everything the agent needs to explain the artifact to the user: the file path, the folder layout, and the exact side-effect boundary. Nothing material for calling this zero-arg tool is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline is 4. No parameter-like inputs are exposed or implied, correctly matching the empty schema.

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+resource (writes the team report page) and describes the artifact concretely, including that it is 'the plain report made for sharing'. It does not name the sibling it differs from (scout_report, scout_lane_report), so the agent must infer the team-vs-lane distinction, but the purpose itself is unmistakable.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'the plain report made for sharing' and the closing 'Tell the person where the page is'. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative among the many report-producing siblings (scout_report, scout_lane_report, scout_coverage).

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