گزارش‌ها و مانیتورینگ

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds materially by disclosing the authorization requirement (admin rights or monitoring access), which tells the agent this call can fail on permissions. It stops short of describing the report payload or latency.

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?

Three short sentences with purpose and access front-loaded ahead of the use-case hint; no filler. Slightly tighter ordering (purpose, access, use-cases) would make it a 5, but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only, 7-param reporting tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: what the reports are, who can call it, and roughly why. It could note that report selection drives all other params, but the enum schema carries most of that.

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 100% and the enum already documents all 14 report types and the conditional role of user_id, project_id, project_label_id, from/to dates and search. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (management reports from the monitoring section) and its domain (workload, delays, activity), which lets an agent place it as the reporting aggregator among siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearest siblings (e.g. mizito_dashboard), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Gives concrete context ('useful for analysing workload, delays and activity') and the access prerequisite ('needs workspace admin rights, or monitoring access to advanced projects'). It doesn't name when-not-to-use or point at alternative tools, but the contextual signal is clear.

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