get_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches metadata, which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose whether the report must be in a certain status, whether config_json is returned in a particular format, or what happens if the report_id does not exist. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic fetch action.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('Fetch a report's metadata') and immediately lists the specific fields returned. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 simple single-parameter read tool, the description is mostly adequate: it names the resource, the action, and the return fields. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could be more complete by noting error behavior (e.g., invalid report_id) or any access constraints. The sibling list helps contextualize the tool, but the description itself leaves a few minor gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented report_id parameter. The description does not explain what report_id refers to or how to obtain it, but the parameter name is self-explanatory and the tool's purpose makes the parameter's role clear. The description adds some context by listing the returned fields, but it does not clarify the parameter's format or constraints beyond the schema's integer type.

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 fetches a report's metadata and enumerates the specific fields returned (title, status, dashboard_kind, config_json). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_draft_report or update_draft_report by focusing on retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 a read-only retrieval use case, which is enough to differentiate from mutation siblings like create_draft_report, update_draft_report, and submit_report. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites like the report needing to exist or be accessible.

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