distill_report_design

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it declares CHỈ ĐỌC (read-only) on the source, describes what gets written and where, and warns that output contains real business bindings that should stay in a private Knowledge Dir and not be committed. It omits auth/rate-limit context, but covers the operationally important traits.

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?

Front-loads the core action and output set, then uses a compact per-parameter list and a closing note. Every line is useful; minor verbosity in the artifact enumeration keeps it just short of maximally tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation; the description instead covers inputs, destinations, workflow pairing, and the privacy caveat. For a read-only, 3-param, schema-rich tool this is complete enough 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: report_path is explained as accepting .pbip, *.Report, or definition folders; project is defined as the Knowledge Dir target with default path; out_dir is described as an override that bypasses the Knowledge Dir. This meaningfully exceeds 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?

States a specific verb (scan/distill) and resource (entire PBIR report: pages, theme, settings), and enumerates the concrete artifacts produced (REPORT_CATALOG.md, DESIGN.md, theme/*.json). It also names the complementary sibling (distill_model_schema), so an agent can distinguish it from the model-side extractor.

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?

Clearly frames the tool as the report/design half of a two-part workflow and tells the agent to pair it with distill_model_schema for a full project profile. It adds a do-not-commit constraint, but gives no explicit when-not / alternative routing (e.g. distill_template).

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