write_html_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not say files are created on disk, whether an existing report is overwritten, what happens if verification of findings fails, or whether the write is reversible. Only the existence of two output artifacts (HTML + report.json) is disclosed.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It loses a point because the parenthetical about `groundline reproduce` and the ambiguous "Verify the findings" clause add confusion rather than useful density.

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 5-parameter, 3-required file-writing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. It omits prerequisites, failure behavior, artifact location semantics, and any routing against the four sibling tools.

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 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints that `findings` are consumed and that an output path/report is produced, but `lang` (default zh), `run_id`, `summary`, and `out_path` get no meaning, format, or constraint added.

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?

It names a concrete action (write the HTML report) and an artifact (report.json), which is reasonably specific. However, the leading clause "Verify the findings" blurs what the tool actually does and appears to overlap with the sibling tool named `verify`, leaving the agent unsure whether verification is part of this call or a prerequisite.

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 when-to-use guidance, no ordering relative to siblings like `run_analysis`, `verify`, or `open_run`, and no statement of prerequisites (e.g., findings must already be produced). The mention of `groundline reproduce` hints at downstream use but is not actionable routing guidance.

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