𓂀𓁢𓋹𝔸ℕ𝕌𝔹𝕀𝕊𓋹𓁢𓂀 - Intelligent Guidance for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'retrieves' which implies a read operation, but does not cover critical aspects like whether this is idempotent, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure, possible status values). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its function, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of report status retrieval, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, error conditions, and usage context, which are essential for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in a workflow environment with many sibling tools.

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 100% description coverage, with 'reportId' clearly documented as a unique identifier. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to obtain the ID, but the schema adequately covers the parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Retrieves') and the target ('current status and results of a report generation request'), which is specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_workflow_report' or 'get_step_progress', which might involve similar report-related operations, so it lacks sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'generate_workflow_report' for initiating reports or other status-checking tools. It implies usage for checking report status but offers no explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

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