read_report

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat safety details. It adds useful behavioral context about the returned records, source references, character windows, SHA-256, and the fact that no task tools or inference are executed.

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 compact and front-loads the core action and returned fields. The prerequisite and non-execution notes follow logically, though 'available after either route' is slightly vague and could be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description partially covers return contents, but it leaves the only parameter unexplained and does not clarify pagination behavior. It is adequate for a simple read tool but incomplete around the 'page' mechanics and the meaning of 'either route.'

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 has one required parameter, 'page', with zero description coverage, and the description never explains what the page parameter controls. 'Up to four' hints at pagination but does not clarify page semantics, limits, or behavior when paging beyond available records.

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 specific verb and resource: reading up to four quoted records from a saved evidence report, including source references, character windows, and SHA-256. It also distinguishes itself from execution-oriented siblings by saying it 'does not execute task tools or inference,' though it does not name them directly.

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?

It gives clear preconditions: a saved report must already exist and must match this task's records, and the tool is available after either route. It does not explicitly compare itself to named alternatives, but the context is sufficient to know when it can be used.

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