generate_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not reveal whether the tool is read-only, if it computes aggregate data, or if it has side effects. The word 'comprehensive' adds no behavioral detail. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely reads data and produces a report.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified, using vague language like 'comprehensive.' While it earns points for brevity, the lack of structure or elaboration makes it less helpful than a slightly longer, information-dense description.

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 no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain return values and scope. It only says 'Generate a comprehensive progress report,' leaving the agent to guess what data is included, how it is grouped, and how it differs from stats or list outputs. The sibling context suggests a reporting tool for TODOs, but the description is incomplete.

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%, with each parameter having a description and default values. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. As per the rubric, the baseline is 3 when the schema covers all parameters, and the description does not compensate or add extra context.

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 states a verb ('Generate') and resource ('progress report'), but the resource is vague—it doesn't specify what the report covers (e.g., TODOs). This makes it difficult to distinguish from sibling tools like get_stats, which might also summarize progress. A more specific description like 'Generate a progress report of TODOs grouped by status, priority, or tag' would clarify purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_stats or search_todos. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. The description implies a report-generation use case but does not state any context or prerequisites.

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