get_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds key behavioral context: the audit must be 'completed' and that this returns both status and results. It also implies a read-only operation via 'get'. It does not detail permissions or error cases, but the completed-audit constraint is valuable.

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 sentences, both directly informative. No filler, front-loaded with the primary action, and the alternative is clearly stated in the second sentence.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns (status and results), required state (completed), and when to use an alternative. It doesn't specify the exact response structure, but this is not critical given the straightforward nature of the 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 coverage is 100% and the parameter is described as 'The audit UUID'. The description only references 'audit ID', which adds little semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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?

States exactly what it does: get status and results of a completed audit by audit ID. The verb 'get' plus resource clearly identifies the function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job_status.

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 provides an alternative: 'Use get_job_status to check a job's progress instead.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool and directs to the correct sibling, making usage context very clear.

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