Write or open the visual report

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

Annotations mark it as a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) that is not open-world, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: it writes an HTML file and may launch the user's browser, and browser launch requires prior user consent. It does not mention where the file lands, overwrite behavior, or failure modes, but the consent gating is meaningful added context.

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-loaded with the core verb and resource, followed by two short sentences covering timing and the consent rule. The parenthetical screen inventory is slightly verbose but it earns its place by describing report contents.

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, the description covers what is produced, when to call it, and the one side-effectful parameter's consent requirement. The only notable gap is the undocumented target_score parameter, which an agent would have to infer.

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 75%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning; the description reinforces the permission condition on 'open' but adds nothing about 'lang'. Most notably 'target_score' has no description in either the schema or the description, leaving its effect on the report unexplained.

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+resource ('Write the visual HTML report for a scan') and even enumerates the report's screens, so an agent knows exactly what gets produced. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling slop_scan_html, which by name also appears to emit HTML, leaving a real ambiguity unresolved.

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?

Gives clear timing guidance ('at the end of a rescue so the user finds the result waiting') and a conditional rule for the open parameter ('only if the user agreed'). No explicit when-not or named alternative is given, so the sibling routing question from slop_scan_html remains unanswered.

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