Report Generate

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

The description explicitly says the tool writes files to the reports directory, which directly contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint: true. This contradiction makes the tool's behavior ambiguous and undermines transparency. Other behavioral details (separating confirmed findings, partial reason placement) are provided, but the core write action conflicts with the stated read-only nature.

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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the primary action. It avoids unnecessary details and includes relevant nuances without verbosity.

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?

The description covers the main output files and the key behavioral nuance of separating confirmed findings from unproven leads, plus the partial_reason use case. It lacks an explanation of the formats parameter and does not describe the output schema, but the core purpose and major behaviors are clear enough for typical usage.

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 provides no descriptions for the parameters (0% coverage). The description explains partial_reason (used to indicate an early stop and affect the first page) but does not explain the formats parameter. This partially compensates for the missing schema information, but leaves one parameter undocumented.

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 writes Report.md, Report.csv, findings.json, and the task graph to reports/, and further clarifies that confirmed findings are separated from unproven leads. This gives a specific verb (write), resource (reports), and scope.

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 provides a specific usage instruction: pass partial_reason when a run stopped early so the report says so on its first page. It does not discuss alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the guidance given is concrete and actionable.

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