generate_insights_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and adds further behavioral context: it aggregates already-computed metrics, returns Markdown and a structured payload, and lists the output keys. No contradictions; the description complements the annotations well.

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 concise and front-loaded. It starts with the core purpose, then enumerates the sections covered, mentions the output format, and provides usage guidance—all in a few sentences without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 (aggregating multiple metrics), the description thoroughly covers its functionality, usage context, output structure (JSON keys listed), and safety (read-only). No output schema exists, but the description compensates by explicitly listing the output fields and mentioning Markdown tokens. This is complete for an AI agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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 100% with only one parameter 'top_n' (items per section, default 5). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and no extra parameter details are provided.

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 tool's purpose: a single-call narrative health snapshot aggregating already-computed metrics like god files, bridges, risk hotspots, and gaps. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_pagerank by being an aggregation, and the description includes specific terms that make its function unmistakable.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool: 'Use at the start of a session to orient yourself instead of chaining get_pagerank + get_risk_hotspots + get_edge_bottlenecks + self_audit.' This provides clear guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, making the usage guideline exceptional.

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