draft_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 of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only says it 'formats' a report, but does not state whether it has side effects (e.g., saves the report), requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a tool that likely only returns formatted text, this is insufficient.

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 is a single concise sentence. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. Every word matters, but important aspects like output format and parameter hints are omitted. It is not overly long, but it could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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 6 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the return value (markdown text), any constraints (e.g., character limits), or how the parameters relate to a HackerOne report. The agent would have to infer too much.

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 schema has 6 required string parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds no information about parameter semantics. For example, 'weakness' could be a CWE ID or name, and 'steps' likely means steps to reproduce, but nothing clarifies this. The agent receives no guidance beyond parameter names.

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 tool formats a HackerOne-style report in markdown. The verb 'Format' and resource 'HackerOne-style report' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_report' (retrieves existing reports) and 'list_my_reports' (lists reports). However, it could explicitly mention that it does not submit the report.

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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_report' or 'list_my_reports'. The description does not include any context about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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