build_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key side effect (file creation on disk) and points at a specific return field (files.dashboard), which is useful behavior the agent would not otherwise know. However, it says nothing about overwrite behavior, permissions, or failure modes for a tool that writes artifacts.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded before the follow-up instruction about relaying the dashboard path. Nothing needs trimming or reordering.

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 10-parameter, 7-required tool with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It partially compensates for the missing output schema by naming files.dashboard, but leaves the entire input contract and the 'schema v1.0' expectation unexplained.

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?

All 10 parameters (company, industry, stage, benchmark, hypotheses, next_evidence, actions, output_dir, headline, base_date) have 0% schema description coverage and the description explains none of them. It references a 'schema v1.0' for the output but adds no meaning about the expected input shapes, which is especially damaging given the nested objects and 7 required fields.

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 names a specific verb ('만듭니다' / creates) and two concrete artifacts: a diagnostic-result JSON (schema v1.0) and an offline HTML dashboard file. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling computation tools like compute_metrics or save_case, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite conditions, and no mention of alternatives such as save_case or get_case. The only actionable instruction ('tell the user the files.dashboard path') is a post-invocation courtesy, not usage guidance.

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