Generate Report

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

The description adds key behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating the operation is asynchronous and 'returns task_id to poll'. This informs the agent that the tool does not immediately return the report and that subsequent polling is needed, which is a critical runtime 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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, and key async behavior. There is no fluff; every phrase contributes meaning, making it easy to read and parse quickly.

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 an asynchronous report-generation tool, the description covers the essential points: input prerequisite, action, and return mechanism (task_id). It does not describe the full post-generation workflow (e.g., how to fetch the report), but that falls under sibling tools like mirofish_get_report or mirofish_check_report_status, so the description is complete for its own scope.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic value by qualifying simulation_id as requiring a 'completed simulation', which is not stated in the schema. The force_regenerate parameter is not mentioned in the description, but its schema description already covers its meaning.

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 uses the specific verb 'Generate' with a clear resource ('a prediction/analysis report') and a clear input condition ('from a completed simulation'). This distinguishes it from sibling report tools like mirofish_get_report, mirofish_delete_report, and mirofish_list_reports, as it focuses on creation rather than retrieval or management.

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 a clear prerequisite ('from a completed simulation') that tells the agent when the tool is valid to invoke. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions among the many report- and task-related siblings, so while the context is clear, there is no direct comparison.

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