generate_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'saved to Obsidian' (side effect). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the tool is purely read-only (it modifies storage). Adequate but not fully transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that includes all key elements (generate, report, organization, format, destination). No extraneous words.

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 output schema, the description explains the output format and destination. It covers the content (evidences by rubric and goal). For a tool with two optional parameters and straightforward behavior, this is fairly complete. Could mention if the report is returned or only saved, but overall good.

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% and both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds context about defaults (year defaults to current, level defaults to DEFAULT_LEVEL) and the nature of the report ('full markdown report'). This provides some added value beyond the schema, but does not significantly expand on parameter behavior. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'generate', the resource 'report of evidences', the organization 'by rubric and goal', and the output format/destination 'markdown report saved to Obsidian'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like generate_summary and generate_game_plan.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context on prerequisites, and no advice on when not to use it. It only states what the tool does.

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