get_r_report_queries_suppress_vulnerability_problems_sid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation is a read-only GET via 'Retrieve records' and 'Calls GET', and it mentions pagination in query. However, it does not describe the returned data shape, auth requirements, rate limits, or what 'suppress_vulnerability_problems_sid' semantically represents.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the endpoint and parameter placement in two sentences. The opening 'Retrieve records' is somewhat redundant with the GET call statement, but overall there is no wasted content.

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 schema is fully generic and the description provides only plumbing details. An agent still lacks domain context about what suppresses vulnerability problems means, what route IDs are valid, which query filters are available, and how this endpoint differs from its close siblings. The presence of an output schema helps with return values but not with input semantics.

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?

Input schema coverage is 0%, with all parameters as generic object/null. The description adds meaningful value by assigning roles: route IDs go in path_params, filters and pagination in query, and required request headers in headers. It does not enumerate exact filter names, but for an otherwise opaque schema this is substantial compensation.

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 states the action ('Retrieve records') and the exact resource via the endpoint path `/r/report_queries/suppress_vulnerability_problems_sid`. It is clear that this is a GET for a specific SID-scoped report query, but it does not differentiate itself from the very similar sibling `get_r_report_queries_suppress_vulnerability_problems`.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of the no-SID sibling. The description only explains how to assemble the HTTP call (path_params, query, headers), not when this endpoint is appropriate.

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