project_report

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the report is derived from the saved .ioc, implying unsaved in-memory edits are not reflected. It does not state whether it's read-only, whether the output file is overwritten, what happens if 'path' is omitted, or what is returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical content list does real work by standing in for an output schema. Slightly dense but 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?

For a read-only report tool with no annotations and no output schema, the enumeration of report contents effectively describes the return values, which is the key missing piece. The remaining gap is output-path/overwrite behavior, which is minor for a reporting tool.

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 both project_id and path are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only the indirect hint that the .ioc must already be saved; it says nothing about the optional output path or what an omitted path results in.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Produce a human readable report') and enumerates exactly what the report covers (MCU, active IPs, pin map, clock settings, project settings) and its source (the saved .ioc). This clearly separates it from mutation or raw-export siblings, though it never names the nearest alternatives (project_csv, ioc_export, project_files) to draw the boundary explicitly.

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 use case (get a readable summary of an existing configuration) is implied by the description, and 'from the saved .ioc' hints it operates on persisted state. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over project_csv, ioc_export, or project_files, and no stated prerequisites.

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