build_category_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'in ONE call' and lists report contents, but fails to clarify side effects (e.g., whether it creates a new report or modifies the existing one), required permissions, or impact on the current session. This is a significant transparency gap for a complex build operation.

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 dense run-on sentence that packs in many details but is hard to scan. It front-loads the core purpose ('RECIPE 2: a beautified multi-page CATEGORY REVIEW') but then becomes a wall of comma-separated fields, lacking structural breaks. Every sentence does earn its place, but formatting hurts readability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers a wide range of context: page types, visual components, and a detailed config schema. However, it omits key context like what happens with the generated report (creation vs. update), return behavior, or prerequisites, and the unexamined reportSessionId parameter. This is partially compensated by the rich description, but gaps remain.

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 coverage is only 50% (config described, reportSessionId not). The description compensates by enumerating config fields (title, subtitle, page-specific tables, measures, slicers) in a structured list, adding meaningful detail beyond the schema's generic 'JSON config' description. However, reportSessionId remains unexplained, preventing a higher score.

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 'builds a beautified multi-page CATEGORY REVIEW' with specific pages (Performance, Price & Volume, Share, Distribution) and visual components, making it distinct from sibling build tools like build_executive_report. The verb 'build' and resource 'category report' are specific and unambiguous.

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 for FMCG category scan templates but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like build_crossretailer_compare or build_executive_report. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, leaving the 'when vs. what' distinction implicit.

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