get_report

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose that the return is the complete report JSON including the evidence ledger index, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about behavior when the ID is unknown, permissions/auth requirements, or payload size. A read-only, non-destructive nature is only implied by '读取'.

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?

A single compact sentence with the lookup key front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Having an output schema means return shape need not be described, and the single parameter is at least named in prose. However, with zero annotations and zero schema coverage, an agent is left without error behavior, ID provenance, or guidance relative to list_reports/get_evidence.

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 schema contributes nothing about report_id. The description compensates partially by explaining that the parameter is a report number/ID used to look up a full report, but it gives no format, origin, or example, so the agent still cannot validate the value it passes.

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 and resource in one clause: read the complete report JSON by report ID, and it also notes the payload includes the evidence ledger index. It is clearly distinct in kind from sibling build_report or risk_sweep, but it never distinguishes itself from list_reports (how to obtain an ID) or get_evidence (partial retrieval), so the sibling routing is left implicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_reports or get_evidence, and no note that a valid report_id must first come from list_reports or build_report. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'by report ID'. No exclusions or preconditions are given.

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