get_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds that it returns 'definition and metadata,' which is additional context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose behavior such as error handling, whether it returns a summary or full definition, or any limitations, so transparency is moderate.

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 directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, making it immediately scannable. No extraneous information is included.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what is returned (definition and metadata) and the parameter is fully documented. However, it could be slightly more descriptive about what 'definition and metadata' encompasses, such as whether it includes fields, permissions, or usage statistics. This would aid the agent in setting expectations, but the current text is sufficient for a basic get operation.

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 input schema has one parameter, sys_id_or_name, with a clear description: 'Report sys_id or exact name.' Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The tool description does not repeat or elaborate on the parameter, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'the definition and metadata of a saved report,' making it clear this tool retrieves a single report's metadata. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_reports, which lists reports, and create_report/update_report, which modify 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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It implies usage through the purpose, but lacks any explicit guidance such as 'use this to fetch a specific report's definition; use list_reports to see all reports.' Without this, the agent has no direct cue for when this is the right choice.

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