anjian_generate_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions generating reports and SHA-256 manifests but doesn't disclose what happens to existing files (overwritten?), whether report outputs are persisted or returned, storage locations, or side effects. The description is vague about the actual behavior beyond generating output formats.

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 a single sentence, which is economical, but it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It front-loads the core purpose but omits critical operational details. There is no wasted text, but the brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter description coverage, this description leaves a lot unexplained. The tool takes 4 parameters (one required) and produces multiple report formats plus a manifest, which suggests non-trivial complexity. The description is inadequate for a tool at this complexity level—an agent would need to guess about output structure, file handling, and the meaning of evaluation_id in relation to 'recent runs'.

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%, and the description only mentions the output formats it produces. It doesn't explain what assessment_id refers to, what include_html/include_obsidian control (though these are fairly self-explanatory), or what obsidian_vault path should be. The description adds minimal value for understanding parameters beyond their names and types.

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 states the tool generates Chinese Markdown/HTML/Obsidian reports and SHA-256 manifests from recent runs. This is a specific verb+resource combo with clear output formats. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like anjian_consolidate or anjian_capability_plan, and the phrase 'recent run' is ambiguous—does it mean the most recent assessment or a specified one?

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives is provided. The description doesn't explain when a report should be generated vs. when to run other sibling tools. It also doesn't clarify what 'assessment_id' refers to or how it relates to recent runs.

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