build_report

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the output is 'redacted' and that the report is based on 'a new live inspection', hinting at side effects (possibly triggering a new inspection). However, it does not clarify whether the tool itself initiates the inspection or consumes prior results, leaving some transparency gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words, covering the core action and inputs efficiently. Every word contributes 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 covers the essential purpose and inputs. However, it does not specify whether the inspection is triggered automatically or must be run previously, leaving a minor ambiguity about the execution flow.

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?

The only parameter, target_id, is fully described in the schema ('Identifier returned by register_target'), and the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, a 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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with a clear resource ('redacted Markdown report') and identifies its data sources ('new live inspection and deterministic checks'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that list, register, inspect, or run checks. It does not explicitly name alternatives but the purpose is clearly stated.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, but the phrase 'from a new live inspection and deterministic checks' implies it should be used after running an inspection and checks, giving some implied usage context. It does not reference sibling tools or exclusions.

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