resources.add_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the return shape, the critical src-vs-url resolution difference between dashboard and export, and that bytes must be base64-encoded. It does not mention overwrite behavior, size limits, or permission requirements, but for a simple write tool the key behavioral caveats are present.

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?

Three sentences, all dense with necessary information: what the tool does, what it returns, how to use the return value correctly, and a critical pitfall to avoid. No filler or repetition of schema fields beyond what adds value.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the action, target location, input encoding, return shape, and correct/incorrect usage in the consuming context. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and use the result properly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by explicitly stating that bytes are base64-encoded and by showing how the returned src should be used in HTML, which clarifies the practical role of the filename and bytes parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Write an image or other binary resource into the shared reports/resources/ folder.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling file/resource tools by naming the exact target folder and resource type. The report-embedding context further clarifies its unique role among the resources.* siblings.

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 gives clear context for use: adding binary resources to reports and embedding them via <img>/<a> tags with src. It also warns not to use url in report HTML. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over files.create or other sibling tools, though the shared reports/resources/ folder implies the distinction.

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