get_report_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details what data is collected (source schema, SN schema, approved mappings, etc.) and that it's ready for rendering. It implies a read-only operation and mentions dependency on prior steps, but lacks explicit side-effect disclosure.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, content list, usage order. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information, and well-structured for quick parsing.

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 complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description provides a high-level overview but lacks detailed return structure. Agent needs the output format to pass to docx skill; the description lists components but not exact fields. Error handling and prerequisites beyond ordering are absent.

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 75% (high), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping parameters to output components (e.g., 'artifact sys_ids' corresponds to artifacts parameter, 'migration stats if available' to migration_stats). It contextualizes the required parameters without duplicating schema details.

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 'Collects all data needed to produce a customer-facing field mapping sign-off report' and specifies the output is structured content ready for rendering. It distinguishes from siblings by indicating it should be called after discover_schema and optionally after build_artifacts/run_full_migration.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this after discover_schema and optionally after build_artifacts / run_full_migration,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context and sibling differentiation imply correct invocation.

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