read_report

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action, omitting details such as error behavior (e.g., file not found), access requirements, or whether the read is local or remote.

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 very concise (one sentence), but this brevity comes at the cost of missing important details. While it earns its place by stating the purpose, it could be expanded with more structure (e.g., mentioning the parameter and behavior) without becoming verbose.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (so return values are defined elsewhere) and the tool is a simple read operation, the description is minimally functional. However, it lacks contextual details like report location or typical use in a workflow (e.g., reading after listing reports).

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the filename parameter, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond redundantly mentioning 'report file'. It does not explain the dual nature (filename or task_id) already present in the schema.

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 ('Read') and resource ('report file'), clearly identifying the tool's action. However, it does not incorporate the schema's detail that the filename can also be a task_id, which would improve clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_reports (to find reports) or read_task (for tasks). The description lacks any context about prerequisites or decision criteria.

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