generate_cohesion_report

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says nothing about whether this tool is read-only, what it computes, whether it has side effects, or what the output looks like. This is a severe transparency gap.

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 only four words, which is under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness. It lacks even a single meaningful detail that would help an agent. This is comparable to the 'Process' example in the calibration.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what a cohesion report is, what metrics or sections it contains, and potentially how the output is returned. The current text provides none of this, making the tool effectively opaque.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. The score reflects the baseline rather than any added value.

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 'Project cohesion report' is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It lacks a clear verb and does not specify what 'cohesion' means or what aspects of the project are analyzed. It also fails to distinguish this from the similar sibling tool 'generate_project_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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like generate_project_report, validate_project, and scene_dependency_graph, the absence of any contextual or comparative information leaves the agent without direction.

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