document_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that rendering is 'purely from the existing readers' (indicating a read-only operation) and that disk output only happens when outPath is provided. It doesn't mention return format or permissions, but key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main function and then a conditional side effect. No redundant words; the structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it generates and the optional file-write behavior. It could be more explicit about the return value when outPath is absent, but the phrasing 'also written to disk' implies the Markdown is otherwise returned. Overall adequate.

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 describes outPath but not reportSessionId. The description echoes the outPath behavior ('When outPath is given... written to disk') but adds no meaning for the required reportSessionId parameter, leaving it unexplained. Partial compensation at best.

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 generates a Markdown documentation artifact for a report, listing specific contents (pages, visuals, filters, bookmarks, theme). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform narrower report operations.

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 as a single comprehensive documentation action ('One-call') but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It provides clear context but no direct guidance on when to choose this tool.

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