report

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the entire behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the write-to-disk side effect and its default path, states 'Changes no initiative' (safety profile), and declares the return values ('the file's path and the figures'). It omits some operational detail - whether an existing file is overwritten, whether git history is a prerequisite, and cost on large repositories - which keeps it from a 5.

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 action and artifact are front-loaded, and the trailing sentences ('Returns the file's path and the figures. Changes no initiative.') efficiently convey return and safety. The middle em-dash clause enumerating report sections is long but each item is informative rather than 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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is produced, where it lands, what it consumes, what it returns, and that it mutates nothing. It leaves some ambiguity about prerequisites (git history availability) and the meaning of domain terms like 'workstreams', so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 100%, so the structured fields already document all 8 parameters, including the enum for mode and the palette/branch globs - the baseline is 3. The description does add a little interpretive context by introducing the concept of 'this period' (the since/until window) and the default output location, but nothing that the schema does not already say.

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 names a specific verb and artifact ('Write a one-page progress report ... self-contained HTML file ... build/brindley-report.html') and enumerates the report's contents (headline figures, scope-over-time, delivered/added/removed, workstreams, attention items) plus its inputs (collections + git history). No sibling tool produces a report, and the framing 'for people outside the team' immediately separates it from raw-data siblings like list, collections or graph.

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?

Usage context is clear: this is the audience-facing digest ('for people outside the team') built from collections and their git history, as opposed to the raw listing/graph tools. It does not, however, name an explicit alternative or state when not to use it (e.g. large repos, no git history), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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