get_forensic_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the return behavior (includes the raw failed message envelope), which is meaningful. However, it does not mention any destructive effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or scope of the full detail returned.

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, concise sentence (<20 words) that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It packs necessary details (full detail, raw envelope) without superfluous words.

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?

The tool is simple (1 required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema needed). The description covers the purpose and a key behavioral detail (raw envelope). For a single-param retrieval tool with rich sibling context, this is adequate but could slightly benefit from more usage context.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the tool's purpose, but it does not elaborate on the parameter format or constraints beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 applies, and the slight improvement is for the added purpose context.

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 explicitly states the action ('Get the full detail of a forensic (RUF) report'), the resource ('forensic report by UUID'), and the scope ('including the raw failed message envelope'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_report' (probably DMARC aggregate) and other forensic tools which list or summarize 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?

The description implies usage by requiring a report UUID, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus the other forensic tools (e.g., list_forensic_reports, get_forensic_reports_statistics, get_forensic_reports_summary) or provide any prerequisites or context for invocation.

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