full_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the output format (self-contained HTML), the sections, and the conditional MEG behavior, but omits file-handling details such as whether the output file will be overwritten, required permissions, or prerequisites beyond a 'fitted model.' This is adequate but has clear 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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, a numbered list of report sections, and a concise parameter table. Every sentence serves a purpose; there is no redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (four parameters, multiple report sections) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential functionality well. It mentions all sections and parameter details. Minor omissions—such as overwrite behavior or computational cost—prevent a perfect score, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the tool description compensates thoroughly by explaining each parameter: inp_path and output_path with path types, run_meg with a condition (only if D=0 + harmonics), and intervention_threshold with the mathematical meaning (|z| threshold). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Generate a complete HTML report for a fitted model and save it to disk,' which is a specific verb+resource+scoped action. The section list (estimated model, diagnosis, formal tests, interventions) distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'formal_tests' or 'estimate_and_diagnose' by presenting itself as the all-in-one report generator.

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 gives clear context: it is for a fitted model and produces a comprehensive, self-contained HTML report, implying use when a full report is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use specialized tools like 'formal_tests' instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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