generate_summary_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that providing URLs as input will trigger an audit first, nor does it clarify whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. The description only lists capabilities, not behaviors.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundant filler.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description omits the important behavior that URL inputs trigger an audit, which could lead an agent to misuse the tool. The report content and return format are only vaguely implied, leaving gaps for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for each parameter including enums and defaults. The description mentions 'multiple formats (text, markdown, HTML)' and 'detail levels (executive, detailed, technical)', which reinforces the schema but adds minimal new meaning beyond it.

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's function: 'Generate executive summary report with key findings and recommendations.' It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('executive summary report'), and the mention of formats and detail levels distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_compliance_report or export_to_html_report.

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 the tool is used for creating executive summaries but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as generate_compliance_report or prioritize_issues. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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