reporting_links

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds that the response is a HAL response, which is a useful behavioral detail beyond what annotations provide. The spec link offers additional reference.

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?

A single, efficient sentence plus a spec link. No wasted words, and the key information (purpose, resource, response format) is front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description sufficiently explains that the tool returns a HAL response with reporting links. The spec link provides completeness. Annotations cover safety. No gaps.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description correctly adds no parameter details. The high baseline (4) applies because the schema already fully documents parameters (none exist).

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 retrieves the reporting root with a HAL response listing all available reporting links. The verb 'Get' and resource 'reporting root' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like metrics_churn or benchmark_evaluations by indicating this is a discovery endpoint.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's straightforward, the description could mention that this tool should be used first to discover available reporting endpoints, then other tools (e.g., metrics_churn) for specific data. The context is implied but not stated.

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