describe_report

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the output inventory and version changes, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only with no side effects. However, the name and context imply a safe read operation.

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 reasonably concise, front-loaded with purpose, and includes necessary version details. It could be slightly tighter but remains informative without excess.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the components returned and noting version-specific changes. It provides sufficient context for an inventory tool, though exact structure details are lacking.

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?

Only one parameter 'path' with 100% schema coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Absolute path to the .rdl file to read'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides a top-level inventory of an RDL, listing specific components (data sources, datasets, parameters, tablixes, charts, page setup), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating 'Always the first call when planning edits', implying it's an overview tool unlike specific getters.

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?

Explicitly says 'Always the first call when planning edits', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. Also includes version-specific migration notes, further aiding usage.

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