generate_executive_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns markdown and covers certain comparisons, but it does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, has no side effects, or requires any permissions. The description is functional but lacks behavioral guarantees.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and audience, the second details the content and output format. Highly concise and front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It adequately covers what the summary includes. However, it could be slightly richer by mentioning the workbook must have run a simulation, but given the tool name, it's implied.

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 coverage is 50% (workbook_name has no description, deterministic_values has a description). The tool description adds context by mentioning 'most recent simulation results for a workbook' for workbook_name, but does not elaborate further. It provides no new meaning beyond the schema for deterministic_values, so 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 an executive-audience summary for the most recent simulation results, with specific content like deterministic vs P50 comparisons, P80 contingency, and top sensitivity drivers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_simulation_results or build_executive_report.

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 explicitly says the markdown output is 'ready to paste into a deck/report', indicating when to use it (for presentation-ready summaries). However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for raw data or detailed analysis.

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