build_report

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

The description discloses side effects (writing three files into the crawl folder), the HTML styling and print behavior, and explicitly explains that there is no bundled PDF step. With no annotations provided, this is substantial unassisted disclosure, though overwrite behavior and permissions are not addressed.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose, lists outputs, explains a notable design decision (no PDF step), and documents the label parameter. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential outputs, the HTML printing behavior, and the label default. It lacks explicit overwrite semantics and a fuller definition of the crawl input, but an agent can still act on it confidently.

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 adds useful meaning for the label parameter, including its role as a display name and its default of the crawled site. However, with schema description coverage at 0%, the crawl parameter is left only as its name with no format, source, or example, so the description only partially compensates.

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 states a specific action ('Write') and resource ('a finished crawl... into its folder'), and names the concrete artifacts produced: report.md, a printable report.html, and analysis.json. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling read/export/crawl-management tools.

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 phrase 'finished crawl' gives a clear precondition: this tool is for generating a report from a completed crawl, not for monitoring, listing, or exporting raw data. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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