read_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It correctly indicates a read operation and restricts the scope to a single direct child, which is useful. However, it does not mention what happens when report.json is missing, whether the artifact_dir must be a directory, or how errors are surfaced.

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 fully conveys the tool's purpose and scope without any waste. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential scope and location. The main gap is lack of guidance about error cases or path conventions, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 gives no description for the artifact_dir parameter and coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by clarifying that artifact_dir refers to a direct child of the workspace artifacts directory and that the tool looks for report.json inside it. It stops short of specifying path format details, but for a single parameter this is sufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('read'), a specific resource ('report.json'), and a precise location ('one direct child of the workspace artifacts directory'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_visual_report, which target a different artifact type.

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 when to use this tool—when you need report.json from a direct child of the artifacts directory—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or say when not to use it. The usage context is reasonably clear from the description alone, though no exclusions are stated.

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