start_report

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers little. It does not say what state is created, whether the call is idempotent for a repeated target, whether an existing report is overwritten, or whether any identifier is returned for use in later steps.

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?

A single short sentence with the action verb front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it is arguably under-specified rather than truly concise.

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 creation tool in a security workflow, with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description omits what an agent needs: target format, expected return (report handle/id), and where this fits relative to submit_result. What exists is adequate but clearly incomplete.

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 0% and the single 'target' parameter is undocumented. The description only echoes the word 'target' ('for a target') without specifying its format (URL, hostname, IP, scope expression), so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 and resource ('Create a security report skeleton') plus the object it acts on ('a target'), which is enough to separate it from the read-oriented siblings (detect_stack, get_profile, search_checks, get_check, list_tools). It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with submit_result, the other write-side sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives. It never says whether this is the first step of a workflow, whether it must precede submit_result, or whether it can be called repeatedly for the same target.

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