build_executive_report

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

The description adds useful context about output components, config defaults (e.g., canvas size), and brand kit mapping. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose whether the tool creates a new page or overwrites existing content, and it omits any permissions or side-effect information.

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 lengthy but well-organized, starting with a clear directive and front-loading the purpose. The configuration list is dense but efficient, providing necessary details without excessive fluff.

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?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description explains the expected config in depth, but it does not explain the reportSessionId parameter, return values, or the effect on the target report. This leaves important context missing for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 schema only vaguely describes config as a JSON string, but the description thoroughly details the config structure, fields, and defaults, adding significant meaning. However, the reportSessionId parameter is not described in either the schema or the description, leaving a gap for one of the two parameters.

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 complete premium 'Executive' dashboard page from a JSON config, listing specific components (theme, banner, KPI cards, charts). This distinguishes it from sibling build tools by targeting a specific dashboard type.

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 when wanting a complete executive dashboard page in one call, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like build_grid_report or build_category_report. It also lacks any exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance.

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