get_reporting_data

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

Given no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the response format and unit/identifier constraints, but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any authorization needs, or if it has side effects. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then detailing parameters and response format. It is concise with no redundant information, though the units and examples could be formatted more compactly.

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, the response format in the description is redundant but helpful. The description covers essential behavioral aspects like identifier requirement and unit variations. For a simple 3-parameter tool, it is sufficiently complete, though it lacks usage examples for common scenarios.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so by listing valid units, explaining the identifier field with examples, and clarifying that 'graph' is required. This adds value beyond the schema, though it could be more exhaustive (e.g., listing all possible graph values).

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 gets historical reporting data for a graph, specifying units and response format. It is specific about verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'list_graphs' or 'get_disk_temps', which could be related.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions that some graphs need an identifier, but does not give context on selecting the appropriate unit or graph type, nor does it indicate prerequisites or limitations.

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