generate_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads from the registry, builds the report, and returns paths and summary. It does not mention any destructive actions (likely none), and the read-only nature is implied. However, it could explicitly state that the tool does not modify any data.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then summarizing the process and output. It is concise, but the inclusion of 'Tool #12' is unnecessary and adds no value for the AI agent. Otherwise, every sentence earns its place.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains that input comes from the registry and output includes report paths and a summary. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that test records must exist) or the structure of the summary.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only reinforces that formats are requested. The description's mention of 'requested formats' aligns with the schema but does not provide extra context.

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 generates an '8-section contract compliance report', specifies it reads from the registry and produces multiple formats, and returns paths and summary. It is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like 'generate_tests' or 'validate_test_contract'.

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 implies the tool is used after test execution to build a compliance report, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., after tests are run, or when a comprehensive compliance report is needed). No when-not-to-use or alternative tooling guidance is provided.

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