generate_report

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and open-world behavior, but the description adds specific context: the tool opens the report in a browser by default and produces an HTML report with optional source blocks. This goes beyond the generic openWorldHint, though it doesn't detail file persistence or 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a key behavioral note and a helpful cross-reference. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 report-generation tool with no output schema, the description covers the output format (HTML report with TOC and diagrams), key behavior (opens in browser), and points to syntax reference. It lacks details on return value (e.g., file path) or file saving location, but the rich schema compensates sufficiently.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description mentions multiple diagrams, table of contents, and optional source blocks, which loosely map to sections and include_source, but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already 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 description states a specific verb (Generate) and resource (HTML report) with key features (multiple DGMO diagrams, table of contents, optional source blocks). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling diagram tools like render_diagram or preview_diagram by focusing on multi-section report generation.

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 only points to get_language_reference for DGMO syntax, which is a sub-task aid rather than guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied (for creating reports) but no explicit when/when-not or alternative selection criteria are provided.

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