prufa_get_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the OR relationship between run_id and share_token and recommends the latter. It doesn't specify behavior when neither is provided (likely error), rate limits, or response details. This is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Key information is front-loaded: what the tool does, and immediately followed by input options and recommendation.

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 no output schema and only two optional parameters, the description covers the essential context: input alternatives and a recommendation. It doesn't describe the output format, but for a simple retrieval tool this is likely sufficient. Could add note about response structure if not obvious.

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 both parameters described. The description adds value by explaining the mutual exclusivity and recommending share_token, which is not evident from the schema alone. This goes beyond a baseline of 3.

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 it gets a JSON report for a run, distinguishing it from sibling tools like prufa_get_run which retrieves a run object. The verb 'Get' and resource 'JSON report for a run' are specific and unambiguous.

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 tells when to use this tool (to get the report for a run) and recommends the share_token parameter. It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives by focusing on report retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related tasks.

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