Get BAS technical report by ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds minor context like 'technical (detailed)' and 'specific assessment,' but does not disclose behaviors such as data format, permissions, or pagination. Given the annotations lower the bar, a score of 3 is appropriate—it adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a practical usage note. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 the tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and annotations cover safety, the description is mostly adequate. However, the lack of parameter explanation (especially 'module') is a clear gap, and there is no mention of what the report contains or how to interpret the response. The usage note adds value, but overall it falls short of being fully self-sufficient for an agent.

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 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. It implies 'assessment_id' through 'by ID' and 'specific assessment,' but completely fails to clarify the 'module' parameter, which has 10 enum values. The description provides no guidance on what module means or how it relates to the assessment ID, leaving the agent to guess. This is a significant gap that the description should have filled.

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 function: 'Get technical (detailed) report for a specific assessment.' The verb 'get' and resource 'technical report' are specific, and the phrase 'specific assessment' distinguishes it from siblings like cymulate_bas_get_executive_report and cymulate_bas_get_latest_technical. Even though the title already says 'by ID', the description reinforces the scope without ambiguity.

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 a clear context: 'Use for SIEM/detection engineering.' This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case implicitly differentiates it from executive report or latest results. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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