corrective_action_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. It also details the content of the record. It does not mention error handling, permissions, or whether historical versions are included, but for a simple read-only report this is acceptable. No contradiction exists.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then enumerates the record contents. It is not overly verbose and conveys necessary information efficiently. The read-only note is appropriately placed at the end.

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 one-parameter read-only report with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns by listing the fields, and it states the read-only behavior. It does not address potential edge cases like missing seq, but that is minor given the simplicity. The context is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The description references `seq` in backticks and explains it as the corrective action identifier, adding meaning beyond the bare integer type in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensation is valuable. The single parameter is clearly explained.

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 identifies the tool as returning the Art. 20 record for a specific corrective action identified by `seq`, and lists the content fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `record_corrective_action` by being read-only and report-focused, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 implies usage when one needs the detailed record of a corrective action, and the read-only nature suggests it is for retrieval rather than modification. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related report tools like `incident_report` or `compliance_report`, nor does it provide exclusions.

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