merge_tenant_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the merge action and the wrapped functions, without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether input files are modified), required permissions, or how the output file is handled. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely creates files.

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 concise sentences: the first clearly states the primary purpose, and the second provides implementation context. There is no filler, and the structure is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficient to convey the core workflow. However, it could be slightly more complete by noting prerequisites (e.g., the results folder must contain valid JSON files) or clarifying that the output HTML file may be overwritten if it already exists.

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 descriptions cover both parameters (resultsFolder and outputHtml) at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, though it does relate the parameters to the overall merge workflow. No additional format, default, or validation details are provided.

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 a specific action (merge), the input (per-tenant Maester result files), and the output (single multi-tenant HTML report), distinguishing it from sibling tools that run, update, or retrieve tests. The phrase 'for MSPs / multi-tenant orgs' adds context but is not necessary for purpose clarity.

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 mentions 'for MSPs / multi-tenant orgs' to signal the target audience, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The usage is implied rather than directly guided, leaving the agent to infer the intended scenario.

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