get_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the 'slim' view returns an action-relevant subset, and the Literal typing was introduced to prevent typos that previously caused silently returning the full bundle. No contradiction with annotations.

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 appropriately sized at four sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the parameter options, and the following sentences justify the type design. Every sentence earns its place, and the content is front-loaded.

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 an output schema present and clear annotations, the description covers the main decision a caller needs to make (full vs slim) and the semantic meaning of the view parameter. It does not enumerate the contents of a Context Bundle, but the sibling tools and output schema fill that gap. Adequate for tool selection and 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It thoroughly explains the 'view' parameter, including the enum values, default, and the rationale for using a Literal type. The 'report_id' parameter is left implicit, but its meaning is obvious from the tool's name and 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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the Context Bundle for a report id.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_repro_steps or get_error_evidence, which retrieve narrower pieces of data.

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 offers clear guidance on choosing between view='full' and view='slim' based on context window size, but it does not explicitly state when to use get_report instead of sibling tools. Usage is implied by the tool's purpose rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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