erpnext_report_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful restriction via the word 'allowed', implying not every report can be run, but it does not explain how allowlisting works, what permissions are needed, or what happens when a disallowed report is requested.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and useful examples, though it omits contextual details that would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 annotations and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values or safety. However, it leaves important gaps: what 'allowed' means, how to discover allowed reports, how to use filters, and how to choose between this tool and the balance-focused sibling tools. These gaps make it incomplete for confident tool invocation.

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%, and the description only partially compensates by providing example report names that map to report_name. It gives no guidance on the filters parameter, its accepted shape, or how filters relate to the chosen report, leaving the agent to guess for an open-ended additionalProperties object.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') with a clear resource ('ERPNext report') and gives concrete examples (General Ledger, Accounts Receivable, Stock Balance). It is understandable and generally distinguishable from the sibling CRUD and planning tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from erpnext_stock_balance or erpnext_party_balance.

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 explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or when-not guidance. The example 'Stock Balance' directly overlaps with the sibling tool erpnext_stock_balance, creating ambiguity for an agent deciding between running a report and using a dedicated balance tool.

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