generate_visual_report

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

No annotations are present, so the description fully discloses key behaviors: generates a self-contained HTML file, auto-opens browser, returns absolute path. It could mention potential side effects or cleanup, but adequately covers behavioral traits.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, each sentence earning its place. Could be slightly more concise, but structure is clear and efficient.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains prerequisites (after run_check/run_snapshot), behavior, and return value. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for the four parameters; it only repeats their purpose. For a tool with 0 required parameters, this is adequate but not extra.

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 clearly states the verb 'generate', the resource 'visual report', and the context 'from the latest evalview check or run results', distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_check and run_snapshot.

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 explicitly says 'Call this after run_check or run_snapshot', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not list when not to use or alternatives, but the context signals with sibling tools fill that gap.

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