generate_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses read-only behavior and the fact that no AWS resources are modified. This is critical safety information for the agent. It does not cover any potential edge cases or error handling, but the core behavioral trait is clear.

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 long, front-loads the key action and output format, and includes the critical read-only note. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 tool with three documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, that it's read-only, and the input source. It does not mention the exact output structure or prerequisites, but the param descriptions compensate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds only the context that the report is from scan results, which aligns with the scan_results parameter description. No additional parameter-level semantics are provided beyond the schema.

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 generates a Markdown security report from scan results, a specific verb+resource combination. While it distinguishes itself from scanning siblings, it does not explicitly differentiate from other report-generating siblings like generate_html_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?

The description implies the tool should be used after obtaining scan results from 'scan_all', but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternative report tools, nor any when-not scenarios.

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