Lire un rapport d'audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a behavioral nuance: raw data is excluded by default but included when detail=full. This is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not elaborate on potential side effects of 'collect' (e.g., whether it mutates state) or response format details.

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 a single sentence, compact and front-loaded with the main purpose and key contents. The parenthetical HTTP endpoint adds useful reference but is placed at the end. It is concise with no filler, though it could be even more direct without the endpoint detail.

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 5 parameters with 2 required and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and the 'detail' behavior but leaves out guidance on the 'collect' parameter (which may have side effects) and the 'section' parameter's exact format. Sibling tools are numerous, but the description doesn't help disambiguate, so completeness is moderate.

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 80%, and the schema already documents 'detail', 'siteId', 'collect', and 'section'. The description adds no new meaning for these parameters; it merely mentions 'detail=full' as a trigger for raw data. Since coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 reads an audit report and lists the key contents (scores, synthesis, prioritized action plan with follow-up status, sections). It also mentions the HTTP endpoint format, which adds technical specificity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listAuditReports, getAuditSection, and createAuditReport.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides no context about when to choose this over listAuditReports or getAuditSection, nor does it mention prerequisites like having a valid report ID. The sibling tools are not referenced, so an agent is left to infer use cases from the name and schema.

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