Cm360.Report.Run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one valuable behavioral fact — the call returns a report file — but says nothing about whether execution is synchronous or long-running, what quota or permissions are needed, or what happens if the definition is invalid. That is a meaningful gap for an execution tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the return-value note is parenthetical and unobtrusive. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness leaves little room for the guidance a no-annotation tool needs.

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?

The output schema covers return values and there are only two parameters, so the core is present. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should still say how to obtain the report_id and whether the run is asynchronous — neither is addressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does map both required parameters semantically ('by id' → report_id, 'under a CM360 user profile' → profile_id), which is real added value, but it gives no format hints (e.g. numeric vs. string ids) or how to obtain either 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run a report definition by id') and scopes it to a CM360 user profile, which is enough to distinguish it from cm360.report.insert (which creates a definition) and cm360.reports.list. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation must be inferred.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by id' signals that an existing report definition is required, hinting the agent should first obtain an id via cm360.reports.list or cm360.report.insert. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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