generate_source_report

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

The description discloses several important behaviors: the report is immutable, prepublication-scoped, covers every unresolved or acknowledged exception, and URL checks are opt-in. However, with no annotations at all, it does not disclose whether the report is persisted, what side effects occur, or what failure modes exist.

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 tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the report's content scope and the opt-in behavior, making every sentence informative.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and three underdocumented parameters, the description is not complete enough for confident invocation. It does not explain what the 'bound revision' is, how the report is returned or stored, or what timeout_ms affects.

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%, so the description must compensate for the bare schema. It addresses check_urls by noting URL availability checks are opt-in, but it leaves slug, the only required parameter, and timeout_ms completely unexplained.

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 and object ('Generate an immutable prepublication report for the bound revision') and tells the agent what the report contains ('listing every unresolved or acknowledged exception'). It is clearly distinct in intent from siblings like get_server_health or run_mechanical_checks, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 tool versus alternatives such as create_source_audit or get_source_audit. The only usage-related note, 'URL availability checks are opt-in,' is parameter guidance rather than tool-selection guidance, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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