generate_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'generate a report,' which doesn't clarify if the report is returned, written to a file, requires set_output_directory, or has any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate consequences.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary verbiage. It's efficient, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description offers minimal context. It fails to explain what 'scroll animation analysis' covers, how the report integrates with sibling tools, or what the output looks like. The presence of sibling tools like set_output_directory suggests missing workflow context.

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?

Th input schema has a single 'format' parameter with an enum and default, which is self-explanatory, but the schema description coverage is 0% and the tool description entirely ignores the parameter. It does not explain what each format produces or that markdown is the default.

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's purpose: generating a comprehensive report of the scroll animation analysis. It uses a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('report'), but it doesn't differentiate from siblings like export_replicable_code or deep_script_analysis, which could also produce outputs.

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 vs. alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., must run scroll_and_record first), and no mention of suitable workflows. It's a standalone statement without context.

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