Reports engine version, implemented specification, and encoded behavioural findings to verify where sample-size and power numbers come from and how trustworthy they are.
Report engine version, the specification it implements, and the documented behavioural findings it encodes. Use this when a user asks how trustworthy the numbers are or where they come from.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. 'Report' implies a read-only, side-effect-free lookup and the content of the output is sketched, but it never explicitly states there are no side effects, no required auth, or how the findings are formatted.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste, with the payload description front-loaded and the usage cue following immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 simple zero-parameter introspection tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers both what it returns and when to call it. A brief note on the shape of the findings (e.g. structured list vs prose) would make it complete.
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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the argument level and it correctly implies a no-argument call.
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?
States a specific verb ('Report') and enumerates exactly what is returned: engine version, the specification implemented, and documented behavioural findings. It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_tests or compute_effect_size, though it never names them 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?
Gives a concrete triggering condition: 'when a user asks how trustworthy the numbers are or where they come from.' That routes the agent well, but there are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. describe_test) to fully disambiguate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.