Create a field service report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs asset_review internally and that a reference is auto-generated if omitted, which are valuable behaviors. However, it does not clarify whether the tool is a pure read/compute or writes persistent data, despite an outputPath parameter that implies file writing. It also omits any error or side-effect details. This partial transparency earns a 3.

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 three-sentence description is compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose and output content; the second covers the internal-call routing; the third explains format semantics. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must be self-sufficient. It covers the report’s structure, the internal call, and format interpretations. It does not describe error scenarios or return values, but given the tool is a generator that writes files, the basics are covered. The presence of an outputPath parameter and its schema description already conveys the write behavior, so the description is adequately complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of each format beyond the enum: 'pdf' for a printable field pack, 'markdown' to paste into a ticket, and 'json' to post-process. This directly helps the agent pick the right format. No other parameters are elaborated in the description, but their schema descriptions are sufficient.

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 clear, specific purpose: 'Turn a site's faults into a service request that a person can act on' and enumerates the report's constituents (prioritised jobs, plain-language account, evidence, steps, tools, sign-off criteria). It also names a sibling (asset_review) and explicitly tells the agent to call this tool instead, making the differentiation explicit.

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 gives direct usage guidance: 'Runs asset_review internally, so call this directly rather than reviewing first' tells the agent when to prefer this over the sibling. It also explains the three format options with their intended use cases (pdf for printable pack, markdown for ticketing, json for post-processing). It does not spell out exclusions for other siblings, but the context is clear enough.

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