Rapport d'un problème

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it specifies the response contents (explanation, correction, evolution between crawls, affected URLs/links, resolved URLs) and pagination (50 per page), which helps the agent expect the data shape. No contradiction with annotations.

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, compact sentence with clear enumeration of key content and the API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While it could be improved with bullet points for readability, it is concise and contains no filler.

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 there is no output schema, the description provides a good sense of the return data (explanation, correction, evolution, URLs, resolved URLs) and pagination. It implies the required parameters (siteId and code) through the tool name and path. Other parameters (filters, sorting) are covered by the schema, so the description is adequate for an agent to understand the call.

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 89%, so most parameters are well documented. The description mentions pagination (50 per page) which loosely relates to the 'page' parameter, but it does not add deeper semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: getting a report of a specific problem (issue) in Screaming Frog, enumerating the content (explanation, correction, evolution between crawls, affected URLs/links, resolved URLs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getScreamingFrogDashboard or getScreamingFrogPage, which target different resources. The verb 'Rapport' and the resource 'problème' provide a specific action and object.

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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. An agent must infer that this tool is for a specific issue code from a crawl, but no direct comparison to sibling tools (e.g., getScreamingFrogDashboard or listScreamingFrogCrawls) is provided.

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