get_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only says it gets details; it does not mention authentication requirements, whether the tool performs a read-only GET, potential error conditions, rate limits, or what fields 'full details' includes. Since an output schema exists, some return structure is available, but the tool's behavior beyond fetching is opaque.

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 short and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. The Args section is a standard, useful formatting choice. No wasted words, though the two-sentence structure could arguably be merged without losing meaning.

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?

The tool is simple with a single required parameter, and the output schema supplies return-value structure. The description covers the essential 'what' and 'where the ID comes from'. It lacks context on when to call it relative to list_reports and what 'full details' includes, but for a simple lookup tool this is acceptable.

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%, so the description must compensate for the sparse schema. It explains that report_id is 'the numeric report ID (from list_reports output)', which adds meaningful provenance and type context beyond the schema's bare integer type. However, it does not elaborate on how to obtain the ID if not from list_reports, or special format constraints, so it only partially bridges the gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details of a specific vulnerability report.' The description is clear and differentiates from sibling tools like list_reports, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it complements. It is unambiguous enough for an agent to understand the tool's core function.

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?

Implies usage by mentioning the report_id comes 'from list_reports output', which gives a hint about the workflow. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_reports or list_report_comments, but the 'full details' wording suggests a single-record retrieval use case.

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