generate_report

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 does not disclose whether report generation is asynchronous, what permissions are required, or any side effects. The existence of get_report_status suggests async behavior, but the description omits this entirely.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It effectively states the core purpose, though it lacks depth. The brevity is appropriate for conciseness, but not for completeness.

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 a tool with five parameters, two enums, and no output schema or annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain conditional parameter usage (e.g., scan_id for scan-type reports vs app_id for others), return behavior, or the likely asynchronous nature of report generation.

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 provides 100% coverage of all five parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters; it even fails to mention the 'compliance' report type that exists in the schema.

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's action ('Generate') and resource ('a new vulnerability report'), with scope ('for an application or scan'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_reports and get_report_status by emphasizing creation of a new 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention list_reports or get_report_status, nor does it provide any exclusions or context about choosing report types beyond a passing mention of application or scan.

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