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 clearly states the tool writes a report to an output directory and returns a dict with status, content, and path, which informs the agent of side effects. It does not mention overwrite behavior or error handling, but for a report generator this is reasonably transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core sentence, but the embedded structured metadata (TOOL_NAME, DISPLAY_NAME, USECASE, etc.) includes some redundancy (e.g., TOOL_NAME duplicates the tool name). It is not excessively long, but the repetition prevents a 5.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, related tools, input format, output format, and an example, making it highly complete for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 input schema has one parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explicitly documenting accepted values: 'report_format: markdown or json.' It also provides an example call, making parameter usage unambiguous.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate an engagement report from recorded scans and findings.' The USECASE further clarifies that it produces a shareable markdown or JSON report, distinguishing it from sibling tools like record_finding and session_summary.

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 description provides clear usage context: it instructs to record findings before calling, and notes that it is 'more useful after findings are recorded.' It lists related tools (record_finding, session_summary) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide explicit alternatives, so a 4.

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