read_report_section

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

The description only says 'read', which implies non-destructive behavior, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or return format. Since no annotations are provided, the description should disclose more about what happens during execution, such as file access requirements.

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 extremely concise—one sentence with no extra words. While efficient, it sacrifices completeness for brevity. It front-loads the purpose but leaves out critical context.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description should explain how the parameters work together (e.g., report_id vs file_path, search_pattern usage). It does not mention what the tool returns or how to interpret the output, leaving the agent guessing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameters beyond what is already in the schema. The description does not add new meaning to the parameters; it simply states the overall purpose.

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 reads a section of a report file and specifies it is for previously generated reports, which aligns with the tool name. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_full_report' by emphasizing that this tool only reads 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context that it reads 'previously generated' reports is implied but not explicitly stated as a prerequisite. No mention of when not to use it or comparisons to other tools.

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