Download 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 prerequisite condition ('The scan must be complete'), which is valuable context. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the scan isn't complete, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, parameter usage, and prerequisite condition. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, making it easy for an AI 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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and prerequisite well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., error handling, output structure) that would be helpful for an agent, especially without annotations or an output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds some semantic context by explaining the purpose of each format option (e.g., 'markdown for AI-readable content'), but this is largely redundant with the schema's enum descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

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 specific action ('Download a pentest report') and resource ('pentest report'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_pentest' (likely metadata) or 'get_findings' (specific findings). It provides a clear verb+resource combination that is distinct from other tools in the list.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('The scan must be complete'), which is essential guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'get_pentest' for non-report data), so it falls short of the highest score.

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