get_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. '讀取' implies read-only access, but the description says nothing about what happens with an unknown run_id, whether the report must already exist, what format or size the Markdown output has, or any auth requirements.

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?

A single short sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but at this length the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy — there is no wasted text, yet nothing extra is provided either.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a completely undocumented required parameter, the description leaves an agent without enough information to invoke the tool reliably. It should at minimum state where run_id comes from and that the result is Markdown text.

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% and the description does not explain run_id at all — not where to obtain it (e.g., from get_job_status or analyze_video), nor its expected format. Only the parameter's self-descriptive name gives the agent any clue.

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 '讀取 Markdown 報告' pairs a specific verb (讀取/read) with a specific resource (Markdown 報告), so the basic action is clear. However, it gives no differentiation from siblings such as get_conflicts, get_cost_summary, or get_job_status, which also retrieve results, so an agent cannot tell when this tool is the right one.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that this tool fetches a finished report after a run exists, without any confirmation in the text.

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