Get Report Outline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations by explaining that it reduces the stored report definition to a compact outline, what fields are returned for pages and objects, and the possible statuses including not_found and outline_failed.

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 opens with a one-sentence summary, then uses compact bullets for usage scenarios and field mappings. Every sentence adds useful information; there is no filler or repetition of annotation data.

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?

With one well-documented parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description still adds important context about return values, statuses, and how to use the outline for downstream operations. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter, report_id, and the input schema already describes it at 100% coverage as 'The report id to outline.' The description does not add extra meaning beyond confirming the tool operates on a stored report, so the schema carries the weight here.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it reads a report's structure and reduces it to a compact outline of pages and objects. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling report tools by focusing on the handles other tools need, rather than duplicating get_report or export_report.

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 explicitly lists when to use this tool: to edit an existing report, recover object names after an apply, or check batch output. It even maps output fields to parameters of sibling tools such as relativeToObject/container, updateObject, and export_report's report_objects, providing concrete routing guidance.

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