get_out_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 does add context by specifying the exact contents of the report and noting it produces the same output as the C 'fue' binary. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., the model must already be estimated, no side effects) or clarify whether the tool modifies any files. This is a moderate gap for a retrieval-like operation.

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 and well-structured: it opens with the primary action, then lists the output contents, provides a usage context sentence, and ends with a clearly labelled parameter section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job of explaining what the report contains (parameter estimates, AIC/BIC, residual statistics, etc.) and when to use it. It is not an overly complex tool, but it could be improved by explicitly stating the return format (e.g., ASCII text as a string) and any error conditions. Still, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke successfully.

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 schema only provides the parameter name `inp_path` with a string type, giving no description. The tool description compensates by explaining: 'inp_path : path to the .inp or .pre file with the model specification.' This adds critical semantic meaning, clarifying the file types and purpose. It could have gone further with path format examples or absolute/relative path guidance, but it meets the need for this single parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Return the full fue .out ASCII report for an estimated model.' It clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like `estimate_and_diagnose` and `model_equation_display` by emphasizing the complete ASCII report containing detailed output such as parameter estimates, AR/MA polynomials, and residual statistics.

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: 'Useful for detailed review of the estimated model beyond what the diagnosis summary shows.' This indicates when to use the tool—when a deeper, more complete report is needed rather than just a summary. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5, but the guidance is clear enough.

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