report_run_scheduled_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ('summary, insights, highlight, and report file path'), which hints that a report file is produced, but never states the write/side-effect, permissions, or whether calling it repeatedly overwrites output.

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-loads the purpose in one sentence, then uses clearly labeled Args and Returns blocks. Every element earns its place, with only minor redundancy between the opening sentence and the Args section.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, argument, and return contents adequately. It falls short on sibling differentiation and on the side effects of generating/writing a report, which an agent scheduling this call would need to know.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents the single 'range' argument, its accepted values ('week'/'month'), and its default. The only gap is that it offers no guidance on choosing month over week.

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 behavior pattern report') with scope (week/month), so the agent knows what it produces. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling pattern_get_pattern_report or pattern_run_pattern_detection, leaving ambiguity about which pattern tool to pick.

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 note 'Designed to be called on a schedule by the agent (e.g. every Sunday)' implies a usage context, which is better than nothing. But it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. the pattern_* siblings and no conditions under which it should not be called.

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