report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is carried. The description usefully discloses the report's section structure, but leaves a material ambiguity: whether rendering returns the document as text or writes a file to disk — a key behavioral fact for an agent deciding whether it can consume the output.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the output shape, with zero filler. The trailing 'Arguments as for check' is tersely efficient, though it is cryptic enough that brevity shades into under-specification.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't describe return values, but for a 7-parameter, zero-coverage tool it should do more than redirect to 'check'. The dependent-argument note is a reasonable shortcut, yet the missing file-vs-text output behavior and any scope caveats leave the definition adequate but incomplete.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. 'Arguments as for check' offloads all semantics to a sibling schema, and opaque parameters such as kev, versions (openvuln/csaf/none) and netbox_filter get no explanation; only the four enum defaults are self-explanatory.

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?

States a specific verb (render) and resource (Markdown or HTML report) and enumerates the report's contents: summary, per-device counts, findings with evidence and remediation snippets. That distinguishes it from a mere scan, though it never explicitly contrasts it with the sibling 'check' beyond deferring its arguments.

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 only guidance is 'Arguments as for check', which is a parameter-delegation note, not a when-to-use rule. Nothing tells the agent when to call report instead of check, or whether it is a follow-up step, a standalone scanner, or a superset of check.

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