generate_completion_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (markdown), the content included, and the save location, but does not mention behaviors like whether existing reports are overwritten, whether it requires a workflow_id, or what happens if the workflow is not complete. The provided info is useful but incomplete for full behavioral transparency.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently conveys what the tool does, what it includes, and where it saves.

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 tool has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives a good overview but lacks details on return values, side effects, or failure modes. It could be more complete by explaining what the tool returns or how it interacts with the workflow state, especially given the absence of an 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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the default save location and mapping content types to parameters (tests, timing, diff), but does not enrich the semantics of output_path or workflow_id beyond what the schema states. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool generates a detailed markdown report for a completed feature workflow, listing the specific contents (test results, build status, timing, git changes). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like generate_test_template (which generates templates) and get_test_results (which retrieves test results).

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 provides clear context by stating the tool is for a 'completed feature workflow', implying it should be used after feature completion. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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