get_report

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this a safe read, so the description's lower bar is met. It adds one useful behavioral fact — the default response is a summary — but does not disclose what the full report contains, what "artifact paths" resolve to, or any failure modes.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose leads and the default behavior follows. It is efficient, though the trailing "and artifact paths" fragment is slightly imprecise rather than fully earning its place.

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, the description carries some return-value burden and does indicate a summary vs. full report. But it leaves "local validation report" undefined, never ties run_id to a prior validation run, and gives no guidance on report availability or staleness — adequate but with clear gaps for a read tool in an 11-tool family.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does partially: "Summary is the default" explains the `full` flag's default and intent, which the schema only shows as a bare boolean. But `run_id` is left entirely to its name and pattern, and the relationship between `full` and the summary default is only implied.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Read a local validation report and artifact paths"), so the operation is identifiable. However it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as get_job or run_camera_validation, and "artifact paths" is a stub rather than a clear statement of scope, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Summary is the default" hints at output behavior but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing relative to the many sibling tools (get_job, run_camera_validation, list_source_files). An agent gets no help deciding whether this is the right tool or when to set full=true.

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