inforcer_reports_run

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by adding that this is high-impact, triggers real report-generation work, is asynchronous, and requires user confirmation before invocation. It also clarifies that it is 'not destructive' despite kicking off side effects, which is a useful nuance beyond destructiveHint=false.

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 compact and front-loaded with the high-impact warning. Each sentence earns its place: what it does, side-effect nuance, async follow-up steps, and user confirmation requirement.

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 high-impact tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: queuing behavior, async execution, how to retrieve results, and user confirmation. No critical guidance is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and their sub-properties. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Queues one or more reports across one or more tenants') with a clear resource and scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining the asynchronous workflow and pointing to inforcer_reports_run_status and inforcer_reports_download_output for follow-up.

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 provides clear workflow guidance: poll with inforcer_reports_run_status, then fetch outputs with inforcer_reports_download_output, and confirm with the user before invoking. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives such as inforcer_assessments_run, so it falls short of full when/ when-not guidance.

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