build_quality_report

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to state that. It adds value by specifying report types (visual, semantic, coverage, TOGAF) but no additional behavioral traits like output format, size, or 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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be more structured (e.g., listing report components) while remaining concise.

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?

Tool has only two optional parameters and an output schema, so the description is minimally adequate. But it lacks details on what the report contains, how it is delivered, or any prerequisites, which might leave an agent uncertain about its use.

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 description must compensate. It partially adds meaning by mentioning 'optional TOGAF report' for the include_togaf parameter, but the include_quality_assurance_views parameter is entirely undocumented in the description.

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?

Clearly states the tool builds a structured visual, semantic, coverage, and optional TOGAF report. The verb 'build' and resource 'report' are specific, and the differentiated report types help distinguish from sibling tools that handle model elements, validation, or TOGAF readiness individually.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., assess_togaf_readiness for TOGAF-specific assessment). The description implies use for generating quality reports but lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisite context.

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