get_report_builder_download_default_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool returns a file, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. Only the HTTP method and generic parameter placement are mentioned, which reveals no actual behavior beyond the request construction.

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 short and not bloated, but it lacks a clear front-loaded purpose. The opening 'Report Settings Calls...' is not informative; the parameter guidance is generic. It is minimally concise but does not earn its sentences with meaningful 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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description fails to explain the tool's function, what 'default template' means, or how it relates to other Report Builder tools. For a simple endpoint, the description should state the purpose and any required authentication or side effects; it does neither. The description is incomplete 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives vague hints: 'route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query', but does not specify which route IDs, what filters, or what the request payload (body) should contain. For a GET endpoint, the mention of a request payload is confusing and unexplained. The guidance is too generic to be actionable.

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 merely restates the endpoint URI ('Calls GET /report_builder/download_default_template') and gives generic parameter placement. It does not state what the tool actually does (e.g., 'download the default report template for Report Builder') or why an agent would invoke it. The verb 'Calls' is a meta-instruction, not a functional purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling Report Builder tools (e.g., get_report_builder_get_report_link, post_report_builder_create_report_job). It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases. The decision to use this tool must be inferred entirely from its name.

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