rca_report_generate

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

Annotations are all false hints ('readOnlyHint: false', etc.), so the description carries the full burden and delivers richly: plan gating that 'returns a security_violation error, not a silent downgrade', per-format dependency fallbacks ('falls back to plaintext if not installed'), and save semantics (report_id/storage_path only when saved). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 long (~250 words) but well-structured with purpose, supported formats, common content, args, and returns sections, and the core routing is front-loaded in the first sentence. The Args/Returns sections somewhat duplicate schema and earlier descriptive content, so it could be trimmed, but the length is largely justified by format-specific behavior.

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 tool with three required params and format-dependent behavior, the description covers when to use it versus siblings, per-format gating and fallbacks, shared report contents, save behavior, and return structure — and an output schema exists to back up the return-value claims. Minor omissions such as the auth token source are already visible in the schema.

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 reported as 0% for the top-level wrapper, and the description compensates thoroughly: it explains what each format produces, that include_raw appends a raw model output appendix, and that save persists the report and returns identifiers. It also documents the return payload fields (content_b64, content_text, byte_size, report_id, storage_path), going beyond what the input schema alone provides.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Generate'), a specific resource ('styled, professional report'), and a scope restriction ('from a SINGLE RCA analysis result'). It explicitly routes to rca_report_compare for the multi-result case, distinguishing it from the closest sibling without needing to inspect any schema.

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?

Provides an explicit when-not instruction and alternative: 'use rca_report_compare instead if you want a report covering multiple results together.' It also gives format-selection guidance through plan tiers (Free/Starter+/Pro+) and per-format context (e.g., markdown is 'good for GitHub/Slack/Notion').

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