Show Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the report is fetched 'for a project,' which is a mild scoping detail; it doesn't disclose view-format behavior, response characteristics, or projectId defaulting beyond what schema already says.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition of structured fields. Every word adds meaning, and the core verb/resource is immediately visible.

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?

For a read-only get-by-id tool with output schema and strong annotations, much is covered structurally. However, the description gives no usage context vs sibling report tools and doesn't mention the view parameter's role in the response format, leaving an agent without enough context to select the tool confidently.

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 83%, so the input schema documents most parameters (reportId, view, baseUrl, profile, projectId, frontendUrl). The description doesn't add parameter-level meaning beyond the 'for a project' hint, and with high schema coverage the 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?

States a clear verb ('fetch') and resource ('one Cloudeval report by id'), and the 'one ... by id' phrasing differentiates it from sibling list/report-type tools like reports_list. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or explain how this relates to reports_waf/reports_rules, so it falls short of a fully differentiated 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?

Provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as reports_list, reports_waf, or reports_rules. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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