report_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add some context beyond the schema, such as paged results and a cryptic note that 'Missing reports remain missing,' but it does not explain permissions, error behavior, or consistency guarantees. The result is partial behavioral disclosure rather than a complete picture.

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 front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence about missing reports is terse and somewhat puzzling, but it does not add bloat. Overall it is appropriately sized.

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?

The output schema helps cover return values, but the tool still has four parameters with 0% schema descriptions and no annotations. The description does not explain config_path, the report enum, or pagination defaults, and its behavioral notes are too vague to fill the gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented parameters. 'Paged' weakly hints at limit/offset, and 'one Unity report' hints at the report parameter, but config_path is unexplained and the report enum values are not described. The description adds little real parameter meaning.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read one Unity report.' It also adds scope with 'paged checks' and 'exact input fingerprint.' It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like config_read or inventory_query, but the purpose is otherwise clear.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not say what situations call for report_read, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Read.'

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