guardian_report

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

No behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the generic action of 'generating a report'. With no annotations provided, the description should convey whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or requires permissions, but it fails to do so.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and enumerates the report types. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous information.

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 the tool generates reports, the description should elaborate on what each report type contains or the expected output format. It also fails to address how this report relates to similar tools (e.g., guardian_audit), leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

The description mentions the three report types, which partially maps to the report_type parameter. The time_period parameter is not mentioned. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description adds some value but does not fully compensate.

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 that the tool generates a security report and lists three types (summary, detailed, compliance). This provides a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like guardian_audit or guardian_scan, which may also produce reports.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from the many other guardian_* tools present in the system.

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