get_ai_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 a key behavioral trait—only cached non-expired reports are returned—and notes that generation requires payment via web app. This goes beyond a simple 'gets a report.'

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 two sentences, with the core purpose and then the key constraint. Every word contributes meaning. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple 3-parameter tool, this description effectively conveys purpose, limitation, and payment requirement. However, without an output schema or parameter details, it leaves some ambiguity about return format and error conditions, but overall it is quite complete given its simplicity.

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 description does not explain the parameters (platform, owner, name). While the context 'for a repo' implies the parameters identify a repository, no explicit mapping or format is given. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema info.

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 returns 'Tier-2 premium AI report content' for a repo, which is a specific resource and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_repo and get_wiki by focusing on the AI report and its cached-only nature.

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 provides clear context: this tool only returns cached, non-expired reports, implying that fresh generation would require the web app. While it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool, the limitation is clearly communicated.

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