Read Report

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation via the verb 'Read', but says nothing about failure modes (missing file), permissions, or that no changes will be made. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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, tightly composed sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately short for such a simple tool, though 'report file' is slightly vague compared to the schema's clarification.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core operation, but it misses relational context: it doesn't clarify when to use this instead of list_reports, read_task, or read_review, nor does it address any specifics about the output. The provided output schema compensates for return information, but the contextual ambiguity remains.

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?

Since the schema description provides complete coverage of the 'filename' parameter (allowing a filename or task_id), the description adds little extra beyond the word 'report'. Baseline is therefore a 3 because the schema already explains the parameter fully.

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 clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'report file', and adds 'full content', which distinguishes it from listing or writing reports. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling read tools like read_task or read_review by mentioning the resource type beyond 'report file'.

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?

The intended usage is implied: use when you need the full information from a report. But the description provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it (e.g., when you only need metadata or to list reports) or comparisons to alternatives like list_reports or read_review.

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