run_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 states 'Run an ERPNext report' but does not explain what this entails—whether it's a read-only operation, if it modifies data, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output looks like. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that likely interacts with a database system.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 of running reports in an ERP system, the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools present, it fails to cover essential context like the tool's behavior, output format, or when to use it. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly in a real-world scenario.

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 100%, with clear documentation for 'report_name' and 'filters' parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of report names or filter structures. Since the schema already provides adequate parameter details, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, indicating no extra value from the description.

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 'Run an ERPNext report' states the action (run) and resource (ERPNext report), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'run' entails (e.g., execution, data retrieval, or generation) and does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_documents' that might also retrieve data, making it vague rather than clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it's for analytics, data export, or real-time queries. With sibling tools like 'get_documents' available, there is no indication of how 'run_report' differs in usage, leaving the agent without direction.

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