generate_remediation_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the PDF is rendered locally, includes only open findings with default severities, guarantees to work, and auto-names files. It lacks details on authentication or return value, but is fairly transparent about core 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 concise with three sentences, each adding essential information: purpose with reliability assurance, inclusion criteria, and naming convention. No redundancy or filler content.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks mention of the return value (e.g., file path or success status) and preconditions like requiring an assessment with remediation findings. It is functional but not fully complete for an agent to infer all side effects.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining the auto-naming pattern (outputDir + appName), that outputPath overrides it, and the default value of impactTypes as an array of severities. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool generates a remediation PDF from NowSecure findings, specifying it's a clean local PDF that avoids the broken NowSecure service. It distinguishes from general assessment PDFs by focusing on open findings requiring remediation with default severities listed.

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 context for when to use this tool: when the UI/REST PDF export fails, and for generating a remediation-focused PDF with specific severity levels. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like download_assessment_pdf for full assessments.

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