crc_lnm_generate_report

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

Annotations provide no read-only, idempotent, or destructive hints, so the description must disclose behavior. It adds 'deterministic' and 'escaped', but these are vague and do not clarify side effects, required permissions, or whether the report is stored or returned. The schema-level Chinese description adds some scope, but the tool description itself is insufficient.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object. It is concise with no filler. The word 'escaped' is slightly ambiguous, but the structure is efficient.

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 five required parameters and an output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks prerequisites, input semantics, and behavioral details. The tool appears to be part of a pipeline, but the description alone does not position it within that pipeline.

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?

The description mentions no parameters. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it provides zero explanation of qc_artifact_id, prediction_artifact_id, or the required metadata fields. The schema's patterns and $defs description are useful, but the tool description adds no parameter meaning.

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 "Generate a deterministic escaped research-assistance report" clearly identifies a Generate operation producing a report, with qualifiers "deterministic" and "research-assistance" that distinguish it from sibling tools like prediction, QC, or feature preparation. It is specific and names the resource (report) and its nature.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as first obtaining QC and prediction artifact IDs. The required parameters imply a pipeline ordering, but the description itself provides no explicit usage context.

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