Get Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that only completed reports are returned and what components are included, but it does not disclose behavior for missing or incomplete reports or mention any auth/rate limits. This adds some context without overstepping.

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 of 15 words that conveys the action, resource, and return contents without unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It names the resource, the retrieval criterion (completed by ID), and the response contents (outline, markdown, metadata). It could be enhanced by noting error handling or explicitly differentiating from get_report_sections, but it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the parameter report_id is already fully documented by the schema as 'The report ID'. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, such as format constraints or example values, beyond linking the ID to a completed report.

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: 'Get a completed report by its ID' and lists what is included (outline, markdown content, metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_report_by_simulation (which retrieves by simulation) and list_reports, making the resource and verb 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 when the agent has a report ID and needs the full content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as get_report_progress or get_report_sections are not referenced, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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