generate_patch_comparison_report

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

The description discloses that this is a non-destructive submission (consistent with annotations: destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false) and returns a report ID, implying an async operation. It adds value beyond annotations by explaining the request-response pattern and the retrieval step.

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 extremely concise—two sentences, no redundant words. Critical information (required field, optional filters, return type) is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a submission tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (report ID) and the necessary retrieval step. It does not mention error handling, but given the annotations (openWorldHint=true), the description is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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% with descriptions for each parameter. The description groups parameters by required/optional and rephrases their purpose ('Filter by...'), but adds no new semantic details. Baseline is 3, and the slight grouping improvement does not warrant a higher score.

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 action ('Submit a request to generate') and the resource ('patch comparison report'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_report' which fetches the result, and other report tools like 'report_all_users_by_so', ensuring the agent understands this is a submission tool.

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 specifies required and optional parameters, and explicitly mentions the follow-up action ('fetch via get_report'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternative ways to get patch data, but the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear.

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