build_grid_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose some behavior: visuals flow into a 12-column grid, fill the canvas, and there are clearPages/pagePrefix append options. However, it does not mention whether existing page content is replaced, permissions required, or any side effects beyond appending, which leaves important behavioral gaps.

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 dense but efficient, packing a lot of information about the config structure, supported visual types, and append behavior into a single paragraph. It front-loads the core purpose ('flexible GRID dashboard') and avoids redundancy, though some abbreviations (e.g., 'RECIPE') are unnecessary and slightly cryptic.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main config structure but leaves gaps: reportSessionId is not described, the page target is not specified, and default clearing behavior is ambiguous. The mention of clearPages/pagePrefix hints at but does not fully explain the append mode, so the description is not fully complete for reliable invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage and lists config as a string, but the description explains the intended structure of config with a visuals array, including type, title, span, etc. This adds substantial meaning. However, it does not explain reportSessionId or clarify that config is a JSON-encoded string, which could confuse the agent about how to construct the parameter.

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 'build a flexible GRID dashboard' and describes the tool's specific role as an open-ended composer that supports any combination of visuals in one call. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like build_executive_report and build_category_report by emphasizing its flexibility and the 'template library' context.

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 provides context on when to use this tool: for custom, flexible grid dashboards via 'open-ended composer behind the template library', and mentions clearPages/pagePrefix for appending. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer typical use cases.

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