get_report_overview

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden and clearly specifies the output: metadata and counts, no raw data. It implies a safe read operation, but does not explicitly state whether it is idempotent or the data source. However, for a simple retrieval tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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 short sentences (Chinese and English) that convey the same information efficiently with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded and every word serves a purpose.

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 lack of output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but lacks detail on the structure of metadata and counts. For an agent to fully understand the return value, more specificity is needed. Sibling tools suggest a context of report analysis, but the description is incomplete without output schema.

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 has 100% coverage with a brief description for report_id. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format or example values. Since schema already defines the parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a report overview with metadata and counts per field, explicitly excluding raw data. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_reports (listing reports) and get_console_logs (specific logs).

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 that for raw data other tools should be used by stating '不含原始資料' (without raw data), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool or name alternatives. No direct guidance on prerequisites or comparison with siblings is provided.

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