generate_report

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false (write) and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns immediately with a report_id and PENDING status, and instructs polling get_report until COMPLETED. This provides necessary behavioral context beyond annotations, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authorization.

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 front-loaded with the action, followed by return pattern and parameter details. It is concise but includes a docstring format with Args. Could be slightly tighter, but overall efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the async nature with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return values (report_id, PENDING status), the polling mechanism, and the download_url upon completion. It also covers optional parameters and their defaults.

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%, but the description fully documents each parameter: definition_id is a report definition UUID, resource_ids is an optional list of resource UUIDs for scoping, and target is an optional Aria target name. It explains fallback behavior when omitted, adding significant 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 clearly states the tool triggers report generation from a template, using the verb 'Trigger generation of a report'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_report, list_reports, and delete_report by specifying the initiation of an async process.

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?

The description explains when to use the tool: to generate a report from a definition. It provides the async polling pattern (poll get_report) and explains optional parameter behavior. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear given sibling tools.

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