reports_get

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds some useful behavior beyond that: immutable report_id continuation, finding_id evidence paging, and that oversized records remain in local exports rather than being returned.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the pagination continuation is stated up front after the opening purpose sentence. The terseness and jargon ('bounded context pages') slightly hurt immediate clarity, but the structure is efficient.

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?

This is an 8-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations explaining parameter roles. Although an output schema exists, the description does not explain the pagination/filter parameters or when to use it over sibling report tools, so it is incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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% for all 8 parameters, so the description must compensate but does not. It gives only partial meaning for report_id and finding_id and leaves limit, cursor, status, section, severity, and max_bytes 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?

The description gives a verb, 'Read,' and a vague object, 'bounded context pages,' then later names report_id and finding_id/evidence. It never plainly states that it retrieves report or finding data, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as reports_list or reports_history.

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?

It implies pagination continuation by saying to keep using the returned immutable report_id and that finding_id pages its evidence. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many reports_* siblings.

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