flowpass_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine piece of behavioral context — the report must belong to a run started in this MCP session — but omits what happens on failure, whether the report is the final/complete artifact, or any size/latency characteristics.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and formats come first and the session constraint closes it. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 two-parameter read-only fetch with full schema coverage and annotations, little more is needed. The one gap is that no output schema exists, so a hint about what the different formats contain (particularly fix_prompt, which is non-obvious) would have closed the loop.

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%: run_id is documented as "returned by flowpass_run" and format's enum and default are fully specified in the schema. The description repeats the format list but adds no new meaning (no guidance on when fix_prompt is preferable, no id format details). Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Fetch") plus the resource ("FlowPass report") and enumerates the four output formats, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from any sibling (e.g. flowpass_status, flowpass_run, or the other pass-specific report tools), so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

"for a run started in this MCP session" implies the precondition (a run must exist from this session) but never states when to call this versus flowpass_status or flowpass_run, nor what to do if the run predates the session. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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