h1_get_report_intent

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation via 'Get', but this merely repeats the tool name. It does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the intent ID is invalid. The only additional detail is 'pipeline status', which hints at the response content but is insufficient.

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, short sentence that is direct and free of unnecessary words. It effectively front-loads the core purpose without padding.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description gives the basic purpose but lacks details about the returned structure (e.g., what 'pipeline status' includes) and does not clarify the relationship to similar tools. It is adequate but leaves gaps that could affect correct invocation.

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 already fully describes the single parameter (intent_id) with 'Report intent ID', resulting in 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('report intent') while adding 'pipeline status' as an additional output. This distinguishes it from tools like h1_get_report, but it does not explicitly differentiate from h1_list_report_intents or h1_get_report.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as h1_list_report_intents or h1_get_report. It lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is the preferred choice.

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