get_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden of behavioral disclosure. It enumerates the return fields (title, vulnerability details, impact, severity, CVSS, bounty, attachments, timestamps, program info), giving the agent a comprehensive expectation of outputs. The 'Get' verb implies a read-only, non-destructive 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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states the action and resource, the second lists return fields. It is efficient and front-loaded, with no redundant 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately details the return content. The tool is simple (one required param, no complex nesting), and the description covers essential behavioral aspects. Minor omissions like pagination or error handling do not significantly impair completeness for a fetch-by-ID tool.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage with a clear description for report_id ('The HackerOne report ID'). The description reinforces that the ID corresponds to a specific HackerOne report but adds no new semantic details beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'full details of a specific HackerOne report by ID'. It enumerates the return fields (title, vulnerability, severity, CVSS, bounty, etc.), making it distinct from sibling tools like search_reports (list) or get_report_intent (intent only).

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 when to use the tool (when full report details are needed for a specific ID) but does not explicitly warn against alternatives or mention siblings. The context from sibling names provides some guidance, but the description itself lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative pointers.

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