gerar_relatorio

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It does disclose that a file is saved to ~/.kali-mcp/workspaces/<alvo>_<timestamp>.<ext>, which communicates the main side effect and implies unique file creation via timestamp. However, it does not describe return behavior, auth requirements, failure modes, or whether prior findings are required.

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 consists of two concise sentences, with the first stating the core purpose and the second specifying the output file path. Every sentence earns its place, and critical information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the low tool complexity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and output file location. It is slightly incomplete due to lack of explicit usage guidance and behavioral details, but it is sufficient for a straightforward report-generation tool with an output schema.

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 input schema descriptions cover both parameters fully (100% coverage), including target examples and the formato default and allowed values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Gera relatório consolidado de todos os findings de um alvo', clearly defining the tool as generating a consolidated report of all findings for a target. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listar_findings by emphasizing consolidation into a report file.

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 description implies the tool should be used after findings have been collected for a target, but it offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives. It provides enough context for a basic inference, but no exclusions or comparison to sibling report/listing tools.

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