generate_launch_proof_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects, and it does so well by stating 'Read-only by default' and explaining how to enable writing via write=true and output_path. It also clarifies that the report is Markdown and client-ready, but does not mention failure modes or permissions beyond what is implied.

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, front-loads the tool's core action, and includes all essential information—the sub-tools, the output, the read-only default, and the write mechanism—with no unnecessary 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?

This compound tool has three parameters and an output schema; the description covers the orchestrated sub-tools, the return format, and the read/write behavior, which is sufficient for safe invocation. Since an output schema is present, not detailing the report structure is acceptable.

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 value by specifying the default report filename 'launch-proof-report.md' and clarifying that output_path is only used when write=true. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions and helps the agent understand parameter interplay.

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 what the tool does: it runs four named audit tools together and returns a client-ready Markdown Launch Proof Report. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools, especially the individual audit tools it orchestrates.

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 says to run audit_release, audit_cd, audit_security, and audit_instructions together, implying this tool is used when a combined launch-readiness report is needed. It gives clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it directly to running the sibling audit tools individually.

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