Get Report by Simulation

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear, but the description does not disclose error behavior, return format, or any special conditions like 'no report found' that might occur. It simply restates the operation.

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, concise sentence: 'Get the report associated with a specific simulation.' It is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and contains no filler, making it optimally concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, so the description could suffice, but it lacks information about what exactly is returned (e.g., a report object or report metadata) and does not help the agent choose between this and similar tools like mirofish_get_report. Given the absence of an output schema, some return-value context would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100% since the only parameter, simulation_id, is described as 'The simulation ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.

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 the report associated with a specific simulation.' It identifies a specific resource (report) and context (simulation), which is more than a tautology. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'mirofish_get_report', which may retrieve a report by report ID, leaving potential for confusion.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mirofish_get_report or mirofish_list_reports. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or why one might choose this tool over its siblings.

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