get_review_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly signals a read-style retrieval of an existing report and rules out generation, but it does not disclose failure behavior for missing/invalid reportIds or describe the response format. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, resource, and key parameter, making every word useful.

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 straightforward get-by-id tool, the description plus schema cover the core information needed to select and invoke it: what it retrieves, the required ID, and the output format options. It only lacks explicit guidance about using list_review_reports to discover report IDs, which is a minor gap.

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 schema already documents reportId well, including an example and its source, and the output parameter is self-describing through its enum and default. The description itself adds little beyond restating 'by reportId' and does not explain the meaning or trade-offs of the output options.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('previously generated GitLumen MCP report'), keyed by reportId. The phrase 'previously generated' distinguishes it from generation-focused siblings like screen_repository without requiring the agent to inspect schemas.

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 this should be used after a report has been generated, since reportId comes from screen_repository. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives like list_review_reports for discovering report IDs, nor does it state when this tool should not be used.

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