get_file_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavior: automatically fetching relationship data in addition to the basic analysis. It also specifies what content is included. However, it does not mention potential latency, failure modes, or whether any auth/permissions are required, but for a read-only 'get' tool, the disclosure of auto-fetching is valuable and goes beyond a minimal description.

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 purpose, and every phrase earns its place. It succinctly lists report contents and the auto-fetch behavior without redundancy or fluff.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of the return content ('detection results, file properties, and key relationships') and the fact that it returns both basic analysis and relationship data. It does not specify the exact output format, but that is not required when an output schema is absent. The description is sufficiently complete for a simple get-by-hash tool.

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% and the only parameter, 'hash', is already described in the schema as 'MD5, SHA-1 or SHA-256 hash of the file'. The description repeats this information ('using its hash (MD5/SHA-1/SHA-256)') without adding new meaning like format details, examples, or validation rules. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('comprehensive file analysis report') and identifies the input (hash). It lists what the report includes (detection results, file properties, relationships), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_url_report or get_file_relationship by noting it returns both basic analysis and automatically fetched relationship data.

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 gives clear context: use when you need a comprehensive file report by hash. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is evident from the resource type (file) and the inclusion of relationships, which separates it from get_file_relationship. No explicit when-not-to-use is stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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