generate_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'generate a Markdown field report.' It fails to mention that the tool writes to a file (via output_path), reads multiple external files, or any side effects or prerequisites. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with many inputs.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It earns its place, but given the tool's complexity (11 parameters), the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than clean conciseness.

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 high complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no explicit output schema details visible) and the description is a one-liner. It does not explain the workflow, what artifacts are expected, how the report is structured, or what happens if required inputs are missing. The description is far from complete for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 0%, and the description gives only a generic phrase 'captured artifacts and JSON summaries' which vaguely maps to parameters like screenshot_path, waveform_csv_paths, and *_json_paths. It provides no specific meaning for any of the 11 parameters, leaving the agent to infer their roles.

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 clear action ('Generate') and a specific resource ('Markdown field report') with source materials ('captured artifacts and JSON summaries'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which generate reports; it is the only reporting tool in the list.

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 explicit 'when to use' or alternatives, but the phrase 'from captured artifacts and JSON summaries' implies it should be used after capture/analysis tools have produced these artifacts. This is only implied, not stated, such as 'after using capture_* and analyze_* tools'.

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