get_task_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not required to state safety. It adds the behavior of defaulting to the latest round when round is omitted, which is useful. However, it does not disclose anything about error conditions or what happens if no report exists for a round, but given the read-only nature and simplicity, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, focused sentence that conveys the core action and the one non-obvious parameter behavior. No wasted words.

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 read-only retrieval with annotations covering safety, the description covers the essential behavior (what it returns, round default). It does not describe the output format, but since there is no output schema, that would be nice, but the phrase 'full text (report.md)' gives a strong hint. Minor gaps remain, so a 4 is fair.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the round parameter's default behavior, which is valuable. taskId is not described, but its meaning is implied by the tool name and schema (string). It does not add syntax or format details, so a 3 reflects partial compensation.

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 the verb 'get' and the resource 'acceptance report' (report.md), and clarifies it's for a specific round. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like query_task or list_tasks, which could also return task-related data, so it loses a point for not naming an alternative.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description only mentions the round default behavior but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent cannot infer when to prefer this over query_task or list_tasks.

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