Fetch a specified Warhammer 40K report with its precomputed faction stats, preserving raw and estimated win rates separately and pinning results by release ID for version consistency.
读取指定报告和预先计算的阵营统计，原始胜率与估计胜率分别保留；用release_id固定版本。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_id | Yes | ||
| faction_id | No | ||
| release_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile does not need to be repeated. The definition adds useful content about the data shape: faction statistics are precomputed, and raw and estimated win rates are kept separately. It says nothing about pagination, size, or failure behavior, so it is helpful but not rich.
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?
It is a single dense sentence with no filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded before the release_id usage note. It is efficient, though a semicolon-separated clause makes it slightly packed.
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?
There is no output schema, and the definition partially compensates by naming the returned win-rate fields. For a 3-parameter read tool with 0% schema coverage, however, the meaning of report_id versus faction_id and the default null behavior are only inferred, leaving clear gaps.
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 0%, so the schema provides no descriptions for report_id, faction_id, or release_id. The definition explains release_id's role (version pinning) and implies faction_id via 阵营统计, which partly compensates. report_id's 64-hex format and faction_id's nullability remain undocumented in prose.
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 definition gives a specific verb and resource (读取报告和阵营统计), and adds the key distinction that precomputed faction statistics are returned alongside the report. It also states what is retained in the data (raw vs estimated win rates). It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, but the term 指定 (specified) shows it is not a listing tool like list_reports.
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 definition implies the tool needs a known report id and adds one concrete usage rule: use release_id to pin the version. However, it never says when to choose this instead of list_reports or get_matchups, and it gives no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.