av_session_report

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: it cancels an in-progress debounce and immediately recomputes, it writes built-in HTML by default (Before/Delta/After), and HTML is optional. It does not discuss permissions or reversibility, but the key side effects and defaults are surfaced.

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?

Front-loads the verdict content, which is good, but then strings together several loosely related clauses (HEAD default, av_guard, debounce cancellation, HTML output, required repo) in dense run-on sentences. Nothing is wasted, but it reads as an accumulation of notes rather than a structured definition.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return payload (verdict components plus full report and HTML). Combined with 100% schema coverage of inputs, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the side-effect ordering is only lightly explained.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description only reiterates that repo must be explicitly passed as an absolute workspace path, matching the schema, and adds no new meaning for from/editDir/confirmRepo. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns the structural acceptance verdict (light color + risk count + most severe item) plus the full report. It also names sibling tools (av_guard, av_session_start) and distinguishes when those apply, though the exact relationship to av_session_report is a little tangled.

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance: with git it defaults to comparing against HEAD so av_session_start is unnecessary, and it points to av_guard for day-to-day use. That covers context and alternatives clearly, though it stops short of explicit when-NOT-to-use exclusions.

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