validation_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reports that the tool generates reports based on recent validation data and mentions a six-section structure, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., file overwrite on export) or detailed behavior beyond mode selection.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) while covering purpose, modes, and deprecation notice. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

The description covers the core functionality, modes, and relationship to the deprecated tool. However, it lacks details on the six-section structure, return format, or any file export specifics, which would be helpful given no output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The tool description adds context by explaining mode sub-modes and the default view mode, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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 validation reports with two sub-modes (view and export), explicitly linking view to recent validation_check/run/matrix and export to the deprecated validation_report_export. This distinguishes it from siblings like validation_check and validation_run.

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 explains when to use each mode (view for Markdown/JSON report, export for HTML file) and notes that export replaces the deprecated sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with other report-like tools such as chain_score_report.

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