get_report_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool retrieves a template format and mentions 'exact structure and formatting requirements,' which gives some insight into what the agent will receive. However, it does not specify the actual return format, whether it's a simple read operation, or any details about the template's contents, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences long, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. It wastes no words, clearly stating what the tool does and why to use it. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for the agent to understand its role. It explains that the tool provides the template format to follow, which is complete enough for the task. However, it could have briefly distinguished itself from get_report_preview to fully contextualize within the sibling set, but that is a minor gap.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to provide parameter details. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without any parameter-related gaps.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Get the report template format' and clearly states the purpose as understanding the exact structure and formatting requirements for vulnerability reports. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_vulnerability_report (creation), get_report_preview (preview of a specific report), and list_reports (listing existing reports).

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 provides clear context by saying 'Use this to understand the exact structure and formatting requirements for vulnerability reports,' implying it should be used when preparing to create or format a report. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is clear enough for the agent to decide when to call it.

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