Reports Get Saved Report

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no indication of what is returned, whether the report is a saved definition or data, or how missing/invalid report_id is handled.

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 one short sentence with no filler, which is concise. But it is so minimal that it misses useful orientation, such as the distinction from reports_get_report_data or what a saved report contains. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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?

With no output schema and a terse description, the agent lacks key context about return values and the meaning of a saved report. The sibling tools, especially reports_get_report_data, create ambiguity that this description does not resolve. The annotations and schema are not enough to make this a complete tool definition.

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 itself covers two of three parameters well: fields explains dotted output paths with examples, and output_mode explains summary/full/raw behavior. The required report_id has no description, but its meaning is reasonably clear from its name. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema does most of the work.

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 'Get saved report' names a clear action and resource, so it is not entirely tautological. However, it is essentially the tool name and does not explain what a saved report is or how this differs from sibling tools like reports_get_report_data. This leaves the purpose understandable but vague in context.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention reports_list_saved_reports, reports_get_report_data, or any condition that would make this tool the right choice. An agent must rely entirely on naming conventions.

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