get_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes fetching and analyzing without explicitly stating if the tool is read-only or if it has side effects. The lack of a direct statement about non-destructive behavior is a significant gap given the absence of annotations.

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 paragraph but highly information-dense, starting with the main purpose. It covers all key points without redundancy. However, it could benefit from more structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) for easier scanning.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and one sibling, the description covers the return format, parameter usage, and auto-resolution of tenant. It does not address error cases or full output details, but the provided information is sufficient for an AI agent to use the tool correctly in most contexts.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of detail vs include_rows, providing date format and defaults, and clarifying that workspace_slug is injected automatically. This extra context justifies a higher score.

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 explicitly states that the tool fetches and analyzes a QMSCloud report from Metabase to answer user questions, and details the return format. It distinguishes itself from the sibling list_reports by referencing it as a way to find the report key if unsure.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: pass detail=true for per-ticket times, use list_reports for the exact report key, supply dates as YYYY-MM-DD, and notes that the tenant is auto-resolved. It also explains defaults and what not to do (do not ask for workspace_slug).

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