generate_ops_report

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

With no annotations, the description explicitly states 'read-only' and 'from normalized checks', which gives some behavioral context about side effects and aggregation. However, it does not clarify what checks are used, whether the tool performs live probes, what the output contains, or any operational implications.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler, and 'Compose a read-only scheduler/runtime report' is front-loaded. It is compact, but the brevity comes at the cost of critical operational detail.

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?

The tool has five optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must carry substantial contextual weight. It only offers a general purpose and does not explain report contents, how parameters shape the report, or what the caller should expect in return. This leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the five parameters or how they affect the report. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptive detail at all.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compose') and resource ('scheduler/runtime report') and adds the read-only and normalized-checks framing. It is distinguishable from the sibling health/failure tools, which are individual checks, though 'normalized checks' remains somewhat vague.

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 guidance on when to use this report tool versus individual siblings like get_server_health or get_recent_failures. The word 'Compose' implies aggregation, but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided.

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