generate_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the input dependency (it consumes results from already-run tests) and the output format (Markdown), but never says whether the report is returned inline, written to disk, or requires specific permissions, nor whether existing reports are overwritten.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and a scannable bullet list of capabilities, then the routing guidance. Minor redundancy: 'Generate a comprehensive Markdown report' is restated as 'Formats results in a readable Markdown report,' costing a little space.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does explain the aggregation inputs, scoring/status calculation, prioritization, and format, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is the delivery mechanism of the report (returned content vs. file artifact) and whether prior results must be persisted. Still largely complete for this tool's complexity.

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% and both parameters (url, title) are documented in the schema, which already notes title is optional and custom. The description adds no format, default, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Generate a comprehensive Markdown report from test results') and enumerates exactly what it aggregates: visual, functional, performance, accessibility, and SEO results. It is clearly distinguishable from the run_* siblings, which produce test results rather than a consolidated 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('Use this tool after running individual tests to create a final report') and names the alternative path with its selection condition ('Call run_full_test to automatically run all tests and generate a report in one step'). Nothing is left to inference.

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