render_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses that it sets meta.finished, writes two files, raises on incomplete runs, and embeds issue/feedback URLs in a self-sufficient run-state.json. It also highlights the deterministic re-rendering property, which is a meaningful behavior beyond a basic write.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct fact (prerequisite, failure mode, outputs, state carry-forward). Though longer than typical, the complexity of the tool justifies the length, and no sentence is filler.

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?

Covering prerequisites, exact files written, a failure condition, and a downstream consumer (engineering-audit-render), the description gives a full operational picture. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the description does not leave major gaps.

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 schema provides no description for 'finished' (0% coverage), but the description explains it as 'the given ISO timestamp' that sets meta.finished. This disambiguates the only parameter sufficiently, though it leaves formatting details to the schema (which is absent).

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 opens with 'Finish the run and render its report,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this as the finalization step after recording results. It also enumerates concrete deliverables (HTML report, run-state.json) and the deterministic nature, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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 states 'Requires a resolved configuration,' setting a prerequisite, and notes that incomplete runs will raise rather than render. It also implicitly orders file_issues and submit_feedback before this tool, and points to engineering-audit-render as an alternative for later re-rendering, giving explicit context.

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