get_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses the report's content categories but not its operational traits: whether it requires a completed run, whether it is read-only or persists anything, cost or latency, or permission needs. The content enumeration adds some value, though it partially overlaps with the existing output schema.

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 section list is compressed into one front-loaded sentence and the Args block is minimal, with no filler. The opening sentence is a dense comma list rather than a clean 'generates a Markdown report for a run' framing, which slightly blunts front-loading.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described, and the description is adequate for a reporting tool. However, for a lifecycle-bound tool surrounded by start_run/run_status/resume_run siblings, the omission of any prerequisite (e.g. run must be complete) leaves a real gap.

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%, yet the Args block glosses all three parameters meaningfully: run_id identifies the target run, examples controls how many confidently-wrong answers are quoted, and per_question toggles the grid. This compensates well for the empty schema, though the glosses remain terse.

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 concrete artifact and enumerates its contents ('confidently-wrong rate per language, accuracy, confidence when right vs wrong, hedge-word cross-check, language gaps, per-question grid and example answers'), so an agent knows exactly what this produces. It implicitly separates itself from compare_runs and export_run, but never names those siblings. Clear but no explicit sibling differentiation.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus compare_runs or export_run, and no precondition such as the run needing to be finished. Usage is only inferable from the run_id parameter and the report's analytical framing. No exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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