postrc_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that the report is 'Saved to post-rc/' and 'does not modify scan state.' This complements the annotations without contradiction, though it does not detail file naming or permission requirements.

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?

Four concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence provides valuable context: purpose, call order, report content, output location, and read-only safety. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description explains the output type (markdown document) and key sections, fitting well within the postrc_* workflow. It omits file naming details and error scenarios, but these are not critical for a reporting tool.

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% for the two parameters (scan_id and project_path), so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'scan results' and the report's location, but it adds little meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameter semantics.

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 ('Generate a formal validation report from scan results') with a clear resource (report from scan results). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the call order ('Call after postrc_scan') and enumerating report contents (findings summary, severity breakdown, override records, remediation recommendations).

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Call after postrc_scan' and lists target audiences (stakeholders, compliance, audit trails). It does not formally name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide tool selection.

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