team_report

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

With no annotations, the description does carry the burden, and it usefully discloses that the output is one self-contained HTML file and that the call returns a written path. However, it omits that this writes a file to disk, where that file lands, whether it overwrites anything, or any permission requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the artifact description is front-loaded and the return value follows. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so the return contract needn't be spelled out, and the description still names the return value. But with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, an agent still can't tell what session_id defaults to or what limit bounds — meaningful gaps for a three-parameter tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so all three parameters rely purely on their names. The description says nothing about session_id (which session is selected or what happens when empty), limit (500 of what — transcript entries?), or workspace_path, so it fails to compensate for the documented gap.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Render') with a concrete resource ('team session or diff review') and enumerates the artifact's contents (verdict, blockers, verification output, transcript). It is clearly a different output shape from siblings like team_transcript or team_status, but it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

'Render a team session (or diff review)' implies the situation in which to use this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison to team_transcript/team_decisions. The agent must infer that this is the export/report step after a session exists.

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