roboshadow_get_remediation_report

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that this is a listing operation and previews returned fields, but it does not mention pagination behavior, response shape, or whether this is read-only beyond the word 'list'.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the main resource, scope, and key output fields are front-loaded. Every part earns its place.

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?

The schema covers all parameters and required ids, and the description previews the output fields. However, without an output schema and with no mention of how this relates to the sibling remediation CVEs tool, an agent may be unsure whether this returns the report itself or a pageable attempt list and how to drill into attempt-level CVEs.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the organisation-wide scope and return fields, but it does not add meaningfully to any individual parameter beyond what the schema already explains.

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 names a specific resource (vulnerability-remediation attempts) and verb (list), and states the result includes action taken, category, target device, and success/failure. It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling `roboshadow_get_remediation_attempt_cves`.

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?

No guidance is given for when to choose this report over related remediation/CVE sibling tools. The phrase 'across the organisation' implies scope, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool routing.

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