get_html_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: automatic unzipping, return of local directory and inventory, and emphasis on failure screenshots. It does not mention async behavior, auth, or rate limits, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the action, output, and a key feature. It is front-loaded with the main action and ends with a notable detail. Slightly more structure could improve readability, but it is concise.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, output format, and a key debugging hint. It lacks error scenarios or prerequisites, but for a straightforward download tool it is fairly complete.

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 coverage is 50%: outputDir has description in schema, which matches the description. uploadId lacks schema description; the description mentions 'for an upload' but provides no additional detail like format or how to obtain it. The description adds marginal value beyond schema.

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 downloads and auto-unzips an HTML report including screenshots and logs, and returns a local directory and file inventory. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_junit_report or download_artifacts.

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 implies debugging use by highlighting failure screenshots as high-signal artifacts, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_junit_report or download_artifacts. Some guidance on when not to use it is missing.

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