fpt_reporting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies read-only operations ('Search, aggregate, and inspect') but does not explicitly state safety, destructive effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The lack of explicit safety guarantees is a significant gap.

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 well-structured with bullet points for each action. It is concise, contains no filler, and every sentence adds value. The front-loading of the overall purpose is effective.

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 dispatch pattern and presence of an output schema, the description covers the main functionality: four actions with parameter examples. It does not explain return format (output schema covers that), but could mention error handling or edge cases. Overall, it is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by providing detailed required and optional parameters for each action (e.g., text_search: required 'text' and 'entity_types', optional 'limit'). This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare structure.

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 'Search, aggregate, and inspect ShotGrid data for reporting and analysis.' It lists four specific actions with brief explanations, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle individual CRUD operations (sg_find, sg_update, etc.). The verb set is specific and actionable.

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?

Each action includes a one-line description of when to use it (e.g., 'Full-text search across multiple entity types', 'Server-side aggregation'). The tool is positioned for reporting/analysis, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives to siblings are given. The guidance is clear for the available actions.

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