read_report

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 real value by disclosing the default-resolution behavior (newest report for the active terminal) and the shape of the returned payload (trades with entry/exit time, side, volume, prices, profit, comment; breakdown of long/short expectancy, holding time, entry hour). It does not mention failure modes such as a missing or malformed HTML file, which is the remaining gap.

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 output contents are stated first and the parameter default second, so the reader front-loads the right information with no filler sentences. The line-broken layout is slightly fragmented but each clause carries distinct information.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what it reads, what it returns, and what omitting the path does — enough for correct invocation. Only error behavior and the accepted path format are unaddressed, which are small omissions at this complexity.

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 0% and the sole parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must carry the load — and it does, explaining that path is optional and what omission means (newest report for the active terminal). It does not specify whether a relative path, a directory, or a report ID is expected, which is a minor remaining ambiguity.

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?

"Parse a tester HTML report into a summary, every closed trade, and a breakdown" gives a concrete verb (parse) and resource (tester HTML report) plus the three output sections, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not name or contrast with likely siblings such as compare_reports or read_snapshot, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 supplies one operational rule — "Omit path to use the newest report for the active terminal" — which tells the agent how to call it in the common case. It never says when to prefer this over compare_reports for multi-report analysis or read_snapshot for raw snapshot data, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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