report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the reporter-role worker generation path, the default papercraft style, the fallback renderer on failure, and the return value (HTML path). It omits permissions, overwrite behavior, and error semantics, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, then execution behavior, then return value. No filler, though the compressed '(ronda final)' aside slightly reduces readability.

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?

It correctly covers the return value in the absence of an output schema and explains the fallback path. It still leaves three undocumented parameters and no permission/error context for a 5-parameter tool, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 only 40% (open and style documented; title, subtitle, job_ids bare), so the description must compensate. It surfaces the real default style name 'papercraft' (the schema only references plugins.report.default_style) and ties inputs to 'jobs indicados', but adds nothing for open, title, or subtitle.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: generating a pretty HTML report of what the listed jobs achieved. 'Jobs indicados (ronda final)' scopes it clearly enough to separate it from summarize/result, though it never names a sibling 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 parenthetical '(ronda final)' implies this is meant to run after a final round of jobs, giving implicit timing guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing against siblings like summarize or result.

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