tascan_get_report

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations lack: the signed URLs are short-lived (~1h), and include_responses inflates the payload ('default false — keeps the payload light'). This helps an agent reason about freshness and response size.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core get action, then the optional flag's effect. Dense but every clause (photo evidence, signed URLs, ~1h lifetime, payload weight) carries information; minor length cost from the parenthetical depth.

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 no output schema and no nested objects, the description carries the return-value burden and does it adequately by listing report contents and the extra fields unlocked by include_responses. It could be more complete on pagination or report scope (all workers vs filtered), but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by spelling out what include_responses actually returns (submitted numbers, text, choices plus a per-task photo list with fetchable signed URLs) rather than merely restating the field name.

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+resource: 'Get completion report for a task list (event)' and enumerates report contents (task status, completions, workers, photos). It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like tascan_generate_report or tascan_list_reports, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource mentioned; there is no when-to-use/when-not or explicit alternative named against tascan_generate_report, tascan_list_reports, or tascan_get_event. The one piece of real guidance is the conditional 'Set include_responses to also return...', which is a parameter-level rather than tool-selection cue.

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