air_get_assessment_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the condition 'for a completed run', implying the tool may fail or return empty if the assessment is not completed. It also states 'Requires assessments:read', which is a permissions context. This adds some value beyond annotations, but not a full disclosure of behavior.

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 that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded and avoids fluff. However, it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose, such as mentioning the structure of the report.

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 tool with one parameter and annotations present, the description covers the basic purpose and a key requirement (completed run). However, it does not mention return format details, error scenarios, or how it differs from `air_get_assessment` (which is a sibling). It is minimally complete but leaves questions.

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 only parameter `assessmentPid` has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain it. There is no format, example, or clarification of what it represents (e.g., project ID, assessment ID). The name alone is insufficient for an agent to correctly provide the parameter.

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 verb 'Fetch', the resource 'structured risk assessment report JSON', and the condition 'for a completed run'. This distinguishes it from siblings like `air_get_assessment` which likely returns a summary, and `air_get_assessment_stages` which returns stages.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only mentions a permission requirement but no explicit when/when-not or comparison to siblings. For example, it doesn't clarify that this returns the full JSON report, while `air_get_assessment` might return a different format.

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