full_report

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

No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, potential performance implications, or error handling for invalid save paths. The description only lists contents.

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 very concise, but it is merely a list without structure or explanatory text. It could be better organized to improve readability.

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 tool's complexity (many sub-reports) and lack of output schema, the description should explain the format or nature of the returned report. It only lists sections, leaving the agent uncertain about what the output looks like.

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?

The save_path parameter has a comprehensive description in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no new parameter meaning. Baseline score of 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?

The description lists the components of the report (overview, players, etc.), making it clear what the tool provides. However, it does not explicitly state that it returns a single comprehensive report, and it lacks differentiation from sibling tools that cover individual components.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus individual report tools like 'overview' or 'players'. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions for use.

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