reports_checklist

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the set of possible statuses and the crucial semantic caveat that 'none is a pass', which prevents the agent from misreading the output. It stops short of describing scoping or pagination, but the output schema covers return shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the checklist options, then the status taxonomy. Dense but essentially waste-free; the status clause is long but carries real semantic payload.

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?

The output schema means return values need not be explained, and checklist sources plus statuses are covered. However, for a tool sitting among eleven reports_* siblings, the absence of selection guidance and of report_id semantics leaves notable gaps.

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 description carries extra weight. It does explain the 'checklist' parameter's accepted values (masvs-v2 or a TOML path) and what those checklists contain, but says nothing about 'report_id' or how the 'latest' default resolves, leaving one of two parameters semantically unexplained.

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 specific verb+resource ('Map a report onto a checklist') and enumerates the checklist sources (built-in masvs-v2 or a TOML file under an MCP root). That is clear enough to act on, but it does not contrast itself against siblings like reports_get or reports_compare, which also consume a report.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent is not told when checklist mapping is preferable to reports_get, reports_compare, or reports_history, so selection among the many reports_* siblings must be inferred from the name alone.

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