Generate research report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is Markdown, that the report is returned and safely saved under the local data directory, and that report_type must be one of the listed values. This gives a useful behavioral picture, though it does not address empty-data handling or potential overwrite behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and then provides essential output and constraint details compactly.

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?

The description covers report types, data sources, output format, and the storage side effect, and an output schema exists. However, it leaves the meaning of start_date/end_date and the optional project_name filter unexplained, and it does not mention any prerequisites or limitations for generating a report.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds little beyond the schema: report_type values are already an enum, and start_date/end_date meaning is only vaguely implied as a reporting period. The optional project_name parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving most parameters semantically under-specified.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Generate a weekly, meeting, or stage research report') and names the data sources that feed the report. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools that record, list, or update activities and statuses.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a consolidated report is needed from persisted research activities, advisor instructions, and project status. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_research_activities, nor does it state 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.