run_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only explains that a report is run and a result returned, but says nothing about potential side effects of script reports, required permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a significant gap for a tool that may execute arbitrary scripts.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose with no unnecessary words or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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?

Given two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema details visible, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how to specify filters, what report_name must match, or any behavioral constraints. While an output schema exists, the description still leaves the tool's usage ambiguous and incomplete for a potentially complex reporting tool.

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?

The input schema has 2 parameters (report_name, filters) but the description provides zero coverage of them. It does not explain what report_name refers to, what format filters should take, or how the parameters relate to the report. The description fails to compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the tool runs a Frappe/ERPNext Query or Script Report and returns its result. This distinguishes it from sibling document CRUD tools (list_documents, create_document, etc.) by specifying a unique verb and resource.

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 implies this tool is for running reports, which differentiates it from the document CRUD siblings, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternative tools. There is no clear exclusion or when-not-to-use guidance.

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