generate_html_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. The description does not disclose that this tool creates a file at a specified path (defaulting to /tmp/), whether it overwrites existing files, its side effects on the file system, or any dependencies on previous scan tools. The word 'interactive' hints at client-side behavior but is vague.

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 very short (one sentence), which is efficient. However, it sacrifices necessary details for brevity, resulting in under-specification rather than conciseness. For a report generation tool, a few more sentences would be warranted.

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 (nested input object, side-effect of file creation, interactive output) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what 'interactive' means, what the generated HTML contains, how to interpret results, or any dependencies on other tools.

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?

The input schema has two parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'scan_results' as the required input, but provides no explanation of the expected structure for 'scan_results' (e.g., which fields are required, what format). 'output_path' is not described at all. The schema has a nested 'additionalProperties: true' object, which needs extra clarification that is missing.

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 'Generate an interactive HTML report', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'generate_pdf_report' or 'export_findings_json', leaving ambiguity about what distinguishes an HTML report from other report formats.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'generate_pdf_report' or 'export_findings_json'. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., scan results from sibling scanning tools) or when not to use this tool.

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