generate_evidence_report

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses output behavior: JSON content fields and HTML self-contained features. It does not mention destructive actions or side effects, but for a report generation tool this is reasonable.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence is dense with details that could be more structured. Still, every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the description leaves significant gaps. It provides output details but not input semantics or process context, making it only partially complete for an agent.

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% and the description does not explain any parameters (repoRoot, format, includeHtmlPreview). Agents must infer or rely on parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 the tool's purpose ('Assemble the final evidence report') and distinguishes it from sibling tools (audit_dependencies, generate_sbom, scan_repository) by specifying that it produces the final report with detailed content descriptions for JSON and HTML forms.

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 implies this is the final step ('final evidence report') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or prerequisites. It does not mention that this tool should be used after other scanning/auditing tools.

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