generate_report

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

The description discloses crucial behavioral traits: returns immediately with report_id and PENDING status, does not wait for the file, uses the first resource ID as the single root resource, and suggests passing a cluster/datacenter UUID to cover children. These details go beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) and add significant value.

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 well-structured and every sentence earns its place. It includes the workflow, parameter details, and notes on resource behavior without redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 an async report-generation tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the trigger action, immediate return, polling workflow, root-resource behavior, and how to source parameters. Sibling tools are referenced where relevant, making the description self-sufficient.

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 description explains each parameter meaningfully: definition_id from list_report_definitions, resource_ids requiring at least one and using the first as root, and target defaulting when omitted. Schema coverage is 0%, so this is essential. However, it incorrectly labels resource_ids as REQUIRED while the schema marks it optional (default null), which may mislead agents.

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 triggers generation of a report from a report definition template, using the specific verb 'Trigger'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_report (polling status) and list_reports (listing reports). The [WRITE] tag also reinforces the mutating nature.

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?

It explicitly says to poll get_report(report_id) until COMPLETED and then use download_url, and directs users to list_report_definitions and list_resources for finding IDs. This provides clear sequential usage, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_reports or delete_report.

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