generate_report

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the output behavior: a single HTML file with no external assets, base64 embedded plots, a path-only return, and an approximate size of 100–500KB. It also outlines the report's sections. This goes beyond a simple one-liner and gives useful behavioral context without contradicting any annotations.

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 reasonably concise and well-structured, with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence adds relevant detail (report contents, no external assets, output size). It is slightly verbose in places (e.g., 'emailable, attachable' could be seen as redundant), but overall each clause earns its place.

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?

The description covers the output format thoroughly (path-only, HTML size, embedded plots), and there is an output schema defined, so return values are already specified externally. However, it is incomplete in explaining the hints and audience parameters, and does not clarify how this tool compares to sibling reporting tools like data_card or eda_storyboard. This leaves the description adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description had to compensate for the three parameters (source_id, hints, audience). It only mentions source_id in the sentence 'Generate a self-contained HTML report for source_id.', and says nothing about the meaning or usage of 'hints' or 'audience'. This leaves two parameters completely unexplained, which is a significant gap for a tool with a small parameter set.

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 clearly states the tool's main action: 'Generate a self-contained HTML report for source_id.' It also lists specific contents (identity header, verdict, findings, embedded plots, profile table, sample rows), making the purpose concrete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like data_card or eda_storyboard, so it loses one point.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'offline-viewable', 'emailable, attachable', and 'path-only' output, which suggests when this report format is useful. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for different needs, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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