get_report_context

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds context about the division of labor—the server handles design and tables, so the agent should focus on drafting the narrative—but it does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or output size beyond 'compact.'

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 two sentences with no filler, and the main action is front-loaded. The second sentence provides a useful directive, though the term 'report director' is slightly opaque and could be clearer without adding length.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover safety. However, the complete absence of parameter semantics leaves the agent without guidance on what audit_id and before_audit_id do, which is a notable gap for a tool whose primary job is fetching context.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter. With two parameters and no schema descriptions, the description needed to compensate by explaining the purpose of audit_id and before_audit_id, but it adds no semantic meaning at all.

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 clear verb ('Get') and specifies the resources returned: a compact ten-step evidence bundle, report director, and narrative schema. It distinguishes the tool's role from rendering by noting that the server handles design and tables, but it does not name any sibling tools explicitly.

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 usage by instructing to 'draft the narrative once' and noting the server handles design and tables, which gives context for when to call this tool. However, it does not state when to use this versus alternatives like render_report or compare_audits, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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