Inspect an editable report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds value by specifying the report statuses ('Draft or Returned') and noting data confidentiality. This provides useful behavioral context beyond structured annotations.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and returns, with the second adding a confidentiality note. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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 tool with strong annotations and one parameter, the description covers purpose, input scope, and return type. However, since there is no output schema, the description could better describe the structure of the returned editable schema and timing groups to aid agent understanding.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions opening a report but does not clarify that reportId must be a numeric string (per pattern) or explain its role beyond identifying the report. The agent would benefit from explicit parameter guidance.

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 states the action ('Open a Draft or Returned CamCORS supervision report') and specifies what it returns ('editable field schema, option values, and aggregate supervision timing groups'). It distinguishes from siblings like camcors_get_report (likely a different view) and camcors_list_reports (listing) by focusing on editable reports in specific statuses.

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 for Draft or Returned reports and hints at providing the editable schema, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like camcors_prepare_report_edit or camcors_get_report. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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