Retrieves and returns the final user report from evidence stored in SQLite.
Vráti finálny používateľský report z dôkazov uložených v SQLite.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | No | ||
| debug_mode | No | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| original_query | No | ||
| force_regenerate | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or how the force_regenerate parameter influences behavior. This lack of transparency could lead to incorrect assumptions.
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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, its brevity sacrifices detail, making it efficient but not optimally informative.
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 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain the purpose of each parameter, when to invoke the tool, or what the output schema contains, leaving significant gaps in the agent's understanding.
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 schema has 5 parameters with zero coverage, and the description does not mention any of them. There is no explanation of what run_id, session_id, debug_mode, original_query, or force_regenerate mean, leaving the agent without sufficient information to populate them correctly.
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 tool returns a final user report from evidence stored in SQLite, using the specific verb 'returns' and identifying the resource. It is distinct from sibling tools that start sessions, understand queries, add evidence, or manage checklists.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning any prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where it is the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.