Sigma Verify Report Spec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral detail 'without saving,' which reinforces the non-mutating nature but does not disclose additional behavior such as the meaning of validation results or any side effects beyond the annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is concise, though this brevity comes at the cost of not explaining key parameters.

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 a four-parameter tool with a nested required 'document' object and no schema-level parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to construct a correct invocation. It covers the non-saving behavior but leaves the actual spec payload and required identifiers unexplained.

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%, and the description does not explain the purpose or meaning of any of the four parameters, including the required nested 'document' object. The phrase 'report code representation specification' only loosely maps to the input but does not clarify how name, folder_id, or description relate to the verification request.

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 ('Verify') and names the resource ('a report code representation specification'), and clarifies that it does not save. It also differentiates from the similar sibling sigma_verify_workbook_spec by targeting reports specifically, though the phrase 'code representation specification' is somewhat jargon-heavy.

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 phrase 'without saving' implies a use case: validate a report spec while avoiding persistence. However, the description does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when to prefer this over related verification or update tools, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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