get_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful non-annotated trait: the report is only retained for the last 200 operations of the session, warning the agent of expiry. It omits error behavior when a report_id is stale.

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 front-loaded sentence with the core purpose first, then section options, then the retention caveat. The trailing schema-version tag is minor noise but the whole is tight.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, section selection, and retention. The one gap is not stating which operation produces the report_id, leaving provenance implicit.

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 carry the burden. It lists the section values (axes, structure_checks, differences, warnings, unsupported_checks), helping map the enum, but does not explain what each section contains and adds nothing about the report_id format.

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 (the validation report behind a report_id) and explicitly frames the choice between the full report and one section. A verb is only implied ("get"), and no sibling tool is named, so it stops short of full 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?

Usage is only implied: the agent is expected to already hold a report_id from a prior validation. The retention note (last 200 operations) hints at when a report is still retrievable, but no explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or alternatives are offered.

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