run_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 that the tool runs a report and returns output, but does not disclose whether this operation is read-only, whether specific permissions are required beyond the fusion_user parameter, whether the report may have side effects, or any potential failure modes. The parameter explanations add some context (e.g., fusion_user runs as), but key behavioral traits are left unstated.

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 concise (two sentences plus a short arg list) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence earns its place; the Args block provides necessary parameter details without unnecessary prose.

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 only two parameters and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and both parameters adequately. However, it does not mention when to use this vs. alternatives or discuss error scenarios, making it slightly incomplete in an agent context. Given the output schema exists, the lack of return-value detail is acceptable.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by explaining both parameters. 'Full catalog path, e.g. /Custom/MyReports/MY_RPT.xdo' gives a concrete example, and 'Fusion user to run as (default bip_user)' clarifies the default and purpose. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 action: 'Run a deployed BIP report and return its output.' The verb 'Run' and resource 'deployed BIP report' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like deploy_report (which deploys, not runs) and query_fusion (which queries data).

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 that the report must already be deployed (it says 'deployed BIP report'), so an agent can infer that deploy_report should be used first if the report is not yet deployed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like query_fusion for data retrieval, nor does it provide exclusions.

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