uxpass_report_json

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, requires specific authentication, or what happens on invalid run_id. Minimal transparency.

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 sentence of seven words, concise and front-loaded with the key information: what it does and for what context. No redundancy.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and required input, but it lacks context about the relationship to sibling tools (e.g., uxpass_run), error handling, or output format. Given no output schema, some guidance on the return structure would improve completeness.

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 100% with an adequate description of run_id. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats the purpose. Baseline 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 the verb 'Get', the resource 'JSON report', and the context 'for a UXPass run', distinguishing it from sibling report tools that output other formats like HTML or Markdown.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., uxpass_report_html, uxpass_report_md). Usage is implied but not clarified, leaving the agent to infer from the description alone.

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