get_report

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 mentions the return value (path to report file) but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or whether it's read-only or destructive. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clear return statement. It avoids unnecessary details, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating context or prerequisites.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the return value but misses behavioral context like how the report is generated or dependencies on other tools, which could help in a server with siblings like 'run_attack.'

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the return value, which aligns well with the schema's completeness.

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 tool 'Get the report of the last run,' which clearly indicates its function as retrieving a report. However, it lacks specificity about what type of report (e.g., attack results, system logs) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'run_attack' or 'list_garak_probes,' making it somewhat vague.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it retrieves a report from a previous run, but it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., must have run an attack first) or compare to siblings like 'run_attack' for generating new reports, leaving usage unclear.

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