List reports or fetch one by hash

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by disclosing that invalid or withdrawn reports carry correction and successor metadata and must not be presented as healthy. It also clarifies the return content (count, revision, integrity status) and the nature of the result pinned at publish time. This provides rich behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the conditional behavior (omit/provide) and packed with essential information. No filler or repetition. It is concise despite covering both modes and edge cases.

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 description fully covers the tool's behavior given the lack of an output schema: it describes what is returned in list mode (count, revision, integrity status) and fetch mode (title, author, definition, result), and warns about invalid/withdrawn reports. With only one optional parameter and good annotations, this is complete for an AI agent to select and use correctly.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage of the single parameter, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains that omitting hash8 lists reports, while providing it fetches one and details the returned fields (title, author, definition, result). This goes beyond the schema's 'Omit to list public reports' by fully explaining the dual behavior.

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's purpose: it lists published archive and record reports when hash8 is omitted, and fetches a single report by an 8-hex canonical hash. It uses specific verbs (list, fetch) and identifies the resource (reports). The description also distinguishes from siblings like list_features and list_instruments by scoping to reports with integrity status.

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 mode-specific instructions: omit hash8 to list reports, provide hash8 to fetch one. This effectively guides when to use each mode. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, though the sibling tool run_scan is indirectly referenced via 're-submittable to run_scan'.

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