get_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states that the markdown output omits the leaked-credentials section, which is a significant behavioral trait not inferable from the schema. It also notes the default format and the alternative for credentials. However, it doesn't mention error handling, permissions, or response structure beyond this.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds critical information. No fluff or repetition.

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?

For a tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, including format options and the credential removal caveat. It could benefit from a brief note on when to prefer this over scan_status/list_scans, but the output schema and sibling names fill some gaps.

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 schema provides no descriptions for the parameters (0% coverage). The description adds meaning to fmt by listing valid values 'md' (default) and 'json', and implicitly explains scan_id through the 'scan's report' context. While scan_id is self-explanatory, the fmt clarification is valuable.

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's purpose: returning a scan's report. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on report retrieval, and mentions the fmt parameter for format selection. The verb 'return' and resource 'scan's report' are specific.

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 usage context by explaining the default format and the crucial caveat that leaked credentials are removed from markdown, directing users to reveal_credentials for that data. It doesn't explicitly contrast with scan_status or list_scans, but the purpose alone makes the distinction clear.

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