read_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail: section omission returns a sections list, pattern is a regex that returns only matching lines with context_lines, and offset/max_lines enable paging. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the tool's purpose and examples before moving to parameter usage. Each sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 description covers the main parameters and provides useful tips, but with no output schema and seven parameters, it leaves some gaps: no guidance on choosing read_report over sibling tools, no mention of how to list available reports, and no explicit description of the return value except that matching lines and a section list are returned. It is adequate but not complete.

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. It explains section, pattern, context_lines, and offset/max_lines, and gives concrete examples for report. Only the project parameter is left to inference, but its meaning is fairly obvious from the required argument and tool context.

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 opens with 'Read any report or log' followed by concrete example filenames, clearly identifying the resource and action. This distinguishes read_report from listing tools like list_reports and from summary tools like get_timing_summary.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention that list_reports can be used to discover available reports, nor does it explain when get_messages or get_timing_summary would be more appropriate. The section hint about a returned 'sections' list is useful but is not a selection guideline.

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