generate_report

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (analyze CSV, output PPT) but omits side effects, permissions, error handling, or constraints. With no annotations, a score of 3 reflects minimal but adequate behavioral disclosure for a report-generation tool.

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 a single introductory sentence and a structured Args block. Every sentence adds value, though the Args section could be slightly more compact. Overall efficient.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks context about input CSV format, error scenarios, and report content scope. With 4 parameters and no annotations, some completeness gaps remain.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. The Args section provides clear descriptions for all 4 parameters, including an example for 'team_config' and default values for optional params. This compensates well for the bare schema.

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 PPT report from LNA CSV data. It uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('analyzes and generates') and implies a distinct purpose from sibling tools like 'analyze_lna' and 'get_individual_assessments', though not explicitly differentiating.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when it should be selected over siblings like 'analyze_lna' or 'get_recommendations'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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