Generate enterprise report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by specifying the output artifact, its self-contained nature, and the effect of mode=claude (narrative analysis and owner questions). It does not mention file-writing side effects or cached-analysis behavior, but those are partially inferable from the schema's out_dir and refresh.

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 main sentence front-loads the action and then lists many concrete report components; every item is substantive and non-redundant. It is dense rather than perfectly scannable, but there is no fluff.

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?

The description thoroughly covers what the report contains and how mode changes output, but it omits workflow context such as relying on scan_project/cached analysis and when to prefer this tool over sibling extraction tools. The schema fills some gaps (root, out_dir, refresh), leaving an adequate but not fully complete picture.

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 schema already documents root, out_dir, and refresh, while enums cover mode and formats. The description adds useful meaning for mode ('mode=claude adds Claude's narrative analysis and owner questions') and maps formats to 'HTML, Markdown and optional JSON facts', but it does not clarify defaults or the relationship between formats and the listed deliverables.

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 opens with a specific action and resource ('Write a self-contained HTML report') and enumerates the exact report sections, making its purpose concrete. It is clearly distinct from sibling extraction tools like extract_endpoints and from generate_diagram.

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 call generate_report versus scan_project, extract_*, or generate_diagram, nor whether it should follow a prior scan. The only condition mentioned is the intra-tool mode=claude option, which is parameter-level rather than tool-selection guidance.

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