build_runbook_report

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

The annotations already indicate the operation is neither read-only nor destructive. The description adds that the output is redacted and is written to the external state directory, but doesn't disclose whether existing runbooks are overwritten or what other side effects occur.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action, output type, and destination, and every word contributes to the tool's meaning.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description plus schema provides enough to invoke it correctly: the required input is diagnosis_id from start_diagnosis, and the behavior is writing a redacted report to the external state directory. It doesn't spell out the full workflow, but the dependency is captured by the parameter description.

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%: the single parameter diagnosis_id is documented as an identifier returned by start_diagnosis. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Write'), the deliverable ('redacted Markdown and JSON runbook'), and the destination ('external state directory'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from the sibling diagnosis/analysis tools, though it doesn't explicitly name which sibling it is not.

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?

No usage guidance is provided in the description. It doesn't say when to call this tool versus siblings like get_diagnosis or analyze_failures; the only hint is the schema note that diagnosis_id comes from start_diagnosis, which implies a post-diagnosis workflow but is not stated as explicit guidance.

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