run_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Run an ERPNext report,' offering no information about side effects, read-only nature, required permissions, or output characteristics. The lack of any behavioral context makes it nearly useless for understanding tool behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified. Given the minimal detail required for a two-parameter tool, this level of conciseness is acceptable, but it could be expanded slightly without losing clarity.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description is too brief to convey essential context such as what the report returns, how filters are used, or any constraints. The parameter schema covers the 'what' but not the 'how' or expected behavior, making the description insufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema has descriptions for both parameters ('Report filters (optional)' and 'Name of the report'), achieving 100% coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter information, so it neither helps nor hurts. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb 'Run' and a resource 'ERPNext report', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with doctypes and documents. However, it lacks detail on what 'run' entails (e.g., returning data), making it clear but slightly under-specified.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools are about document operations, so it is implied this is for reports, but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The description simply states what it does, not when to use it.

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