reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only lists actions without explaining side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens after execution. This is a significant gap for a multi-action tool.

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 brief and front-loaded with a '[Reporting]' tag, but it's terse to the point of omitting necessary context for a tool with 7 parameters and 6 actions. It's concise but under-specified.

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's complexity (multiple actions, 7 params), the description fails to provide enough contextual information. The schema covers parameter details well, but the description doesn't explain the purpose of each action, usage sequence, or operational dependencies. Output schema may cover return values, but operational context is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond repeating the action list, which is already fully described in the schema's action parameter.

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 identifies the tool as handling report operations and enumerates the supported actions (list, templates, generate, status, download, delete). This clearly distinguishes it from the security-focused sibling tools. However, it doesn't elaborate on what each action does, so it's clear but not fully detailed.

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 implies usage for any report-related task by listing the available actions, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when to use each action. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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