report_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns parseable JSON and describes the internal structure of a report (steps[] with status ok/fail, error and ms), which is valuable behavioral context for an agent diagnosing failures. It doesn't mention error behavior or permissions, but for a read-only retrieval tool, the disclosed structure is substantial.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the core function and format; the second adds diagnostic context about the report structure. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool returns and the structure of the content. It could mention what happens if the report doesn't exist or is malformed, but given the simplicity and the schema's example, this is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'name' parameter well, including an example format. The description adds the hint that the name comes from report_list, which is already in the schema's description. Baseline 3 is correct because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds minimal extra meaning.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('content of a report'), and clarifies the format ('parseable JSON'). It distinguishes itself from report_list and report_delete by focusing on content retrieval. The mention of steps[] with status ok/fail, error and ms further clarifies what the report content looks like.

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 description implies when to use this tool: when you need the content of a report, especially to diagnose failures. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling context (report_list, report_delete) and the schema's reference to report_list provide clear context. A 4 is appropriate because the usage context is clear but exclusions are not explicit.

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