compile_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the output format ('structured markdown report with citations'). It misses behavioral details like whether the tool modifies data, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or has performance constraints (e.g., rate limits), which are critical for a tool with multiple parameters and nested objects.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters with nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, output details, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively in a research compilation context.

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%, providing baseline documentation for all parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying that 'findings' and 'sources' are compiled into the report, but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or usage beyond what the schema already describes.

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 clearly states the action ('compile') and the output ('structured markdown report with citations'), specifying the resource as 'research findings and sources'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'extract_batch' or 'extract_content' by focusing on compilation rather than extraction, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'research_status' or other siblings. The description implies usage for compiling research, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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