claude_code_report

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

Discloses what the tool produces: HTML report, content of detailed report, cost breakdown, transcripts. Notes dependency for include_transcripts. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it does well without contradictions.

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 concise sentences: one states purpose, second covers both parameter modes and output handling. No redundancy, perfectly 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?

No output schema, but description explains return value (HTML string) and what to do with it. Covers both parameter use cases sufficiently for a simple two-parameter tool.

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% (baseline 3). Description adds value by elaborating on report contents for run_id and explaining the default for include_transcripts.

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?

Clearly states it generates self-contained HTML reports of workflow runs. Distinguishes two modes: without run_id lists all runs; with run_id provides detailed report including agent sequence, cost breakdown, and collapsible transcripts. Distinct from sibling tools like claude_code_reply or claude_code_transcript.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use each parameter: omit run_id to list, provide it for detailed report. Mentions prerequisite for include_transcripts (session persistence). No explicit when-not-to-use, but the two modes are clearly differentiated.

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