read_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly states this is a read operation, implying no side effects, and adds 'Free' as extra context. However, it does not mention any prerequisites like unlocking or what happens if the report is locked, which could be expected given the unlock_report sibling.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences, with the key information front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and the additional 'Free' note is a single, useful clarifier.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core usage scenario and parameter source. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but 'Read' implies the report content is returned, so it is adequately complete 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining that the `slug` parameter is the identifier for a specific report, and it tells the agent where to obtain it (search_reports or completed trace). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not specify format or constraints.

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 action ('Read'), the resource ('Tracetify growth report'), and the method ('by slug'). It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying the slug source, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use: after obtaining a slug from search_reports or a completed trace. It implies this is the tool for reading a specific report, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions such as unlock_report for locked reports.

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