generate_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a report is generated but does not specify side effects (e.g., whether it writes files, returns output, or requires authentication), output format, or any operational constraints. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the mode breakdown is efficiently presented. Every element contributes to the agent's understanding without redundancy.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to choose between findings/findingsJson or candidates/candidatesJson, nor what each mode's report entails beyond a label. An agent would likely need to infer or experiment to correctly call the tool, especially since only mode is required and the description implies findings are necessary but doesn't enforce it.

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 descriptions cover 63% of parameters, and the description adds value by explaining the mode parameter's meanings (A/B/C), which the schema only labels as 'Report mode'. However, it does not clarify other parameters like ecosystem, projectName, projectVersion, or the distinction between findings and findingsJson. The added value is partial—mode gets enriched but others remain opaque.

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 security report from verified findings, with a specific resource (report) and verb (generate). It distinguishes three modes (A, B, C) that map to different report types, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from sibling tools like generate_fix or scan_file, which have different actions.

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 implies this tool is used after findings are verified and provides mode options, giving context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit rather than direct, so an agent must infer the appropriate usage context from the 'from verified findings' phrase.

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