chrysalide_get_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns the report is final and should only be fetched when complete, but doesn't disclose what happens if called early, range of formats, or the structure of the returned report. For a tool returning a 'report final' with no output schema, more behavioral context would be valuable.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences with zero wasted words. The critical usage constraint is front-loaded in the second sentence, making it highly scannable. Ideal length for this tool's simplicity.

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 tool is simple (2 params, no output schema) and the description covers the essential timing condition. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description doesn't describe the report's content/structure, and it doesn't explain what happens if called before job completion — leaving some ambiguity for a tool that returns a complete report.

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%, so both parameters (format, job_id) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter detail beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 states the verb+resource ('Retourne le rapport final') and adds a critical usage condition (only when the job is done). It's clear but doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings beyond the timing constraint.

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 explicitly states when to call: 'À appeler seulement quand le job est terminé.' This is a clear when-to-use condition, and combined with sibling names (get_status, cancel_task, start_task), the agent can infer this is the fetch-results tool distinct from status/control tools.

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