report

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

The description explicitly notes the side effect of creating a file when 'output_path' is specified, which is good for a tool with no annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies existing files or requires specific permissions.

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 mostly concise and uses bullet points and emojis for clarity. However, it repeats the action list in the hint and then again in bullets, which is redundant. The structure could be tighter.

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 high parameter count (14) and zero schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It covers actions but not the many optional parameters. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still lacks completeness for parameter semantics.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and 14 parameters, the description only explains the 'action' parameter via the bulleted list. Other parameters like scores, include_booleans, and project_name are not explained, leaving gaps that the schema does not fill.

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 states it is for 'Unified report generation' and lists specific actions (overview, scorecard, briefing, prd), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'health' or 'analyze_alignment', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 lists four actions but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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