generate_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool executes all other tools ('rolls every tool above'), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, what the report format looks like, or any performance implications. Given the tool's nature as a composite of many potentially heavy operations, this lack of transparency is problematic.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words, effectively front-loading the core purpose. It is concise and structured well, but it may be overly terse in that it omits important contextual details. Still, as a concise statement, it is appropriately minimalist for the core message, earning a high score.

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 tool that aggregates multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the combined report contains, how 'since_days' affects the aggregation, or how this differs from running each tool individually. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context to compensate, but it does not.

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 description does not mention the 'since_days' parameter at all. The schema only provides type information (integer or null) and a default of null, but no explanation of what the parameter controls. The description fails to compensate for the complete absence of parameter semantics, leaving agents without any guidance on how to use or interpret this parameter.

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 that the tool 'rolls every tool above into one combined health report,' which clearly indicates its purpose as an aggregator that synthesizes results from the other tools. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are individual analysis utilities. However, the phrase 'tool above' is slightly ambiguous without the context of the sibling list, and 'health report' is not elaborated.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus running the individual sibling tools. It is implied that one would use it to get a consolidated view, but there is no stated recommendation, prerequisites, or mention of alternatives. The lack of any usage context makes this a notable gap.

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