create_shop_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('create') without any information about permissions needed, whether this is a read/write operation, what happens after creation, error conditions, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool that presumably creates something.

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 extremely concise (two words), which could be efficient if it were informative. However, this brevity results in under-specification rather than true conciseness. It's front-loaded but fails to provide necessary information.

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 tool with 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many similar sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'shop report' is, what the parameters do, what the tool returns, or how it differs from other creation tools in the system.

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%, meaning none of the 3 required parameters (report_key, report_title, webasyst_path) are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about what these parameters mean, their format, constraints, or examples. This leaves all parameters completely undocumented.

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 'Создать отчет Shop-Script' is a tautology that restates the tool name in Russian ('create shop report'), providing no additional specificity about what the tool actually does. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_shop_plugin' or 'create_shop_theme', leaving the purpose vague beyond the basic verb+resource.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for creating various Shop-Script components (plugins, themes, etc.), the description offers no context about what a 'shop report' is, when it's needed, or prerequisites for its use.

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