get_reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It indicates a read operation and describes the returned data, but does not mention pagination behavior, default filters, or any rate parameters. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 front-loads the primary action and resource, and includes a clarifying detail about the report contents. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description explains the core purpose and return content, but lacks details about response structure, pagination defaults, and how it fits with sibling tools. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to invoke it confidently without more 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?

The schema descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, though it does hint at the 'when' aspect via reports being filed.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves individual abuse reports for an IP address, naming the specific content (who, why, when). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_ip or get_blacklist, which focus on other aspects.

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 the tool is used when abuse reports are needed, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No explicit comparisons to sibling tools are made, leaving usage guidance only implicit.

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