reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the underlying endpoints and that get_data is a POST that generates (mutating/possibly long-running) while get_report is a GET read, which is genuinely useful. It does not mention auth requirements, whether generation is synchronous, or what the response contains.

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 action list is front-loaded and formatted as a compact per-action breakdown, with zero filler sentences. The endpoint strings are slightly redundant with the schema, but they earn their place by clarifying the action semantics.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the essentials for invocation (actions, required params, examples) but leaves gaps: the structure of `options`, whether reports are generated asynchronously, and what is returned by each action are all unstated.

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 compensate, and it does: it enumerates the two valid action values and which parameters each requires (project_id, report_type, optional options for get_data; project_id, report_type for get_report), plus report_type examples. The content and shape of the optional `options` object remains undefined.

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 names a concrete verb and resource ("Generate and retrieve AttackForge project reports") and splits it into two clearly labeled actions, get_data (POST) and get_report (GET), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not differentiate from sibling resource tools like projects or vulnerabilities, but the action-level distinction is solid.

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?

Listing the HTTP method per action implies the generate-vs-retrieve split, and required parameters are stated per action, which is useful routing information. However, it never explicitly says when to choose get_data over get_report, nor any prerequisites such as permissions or whether a report must exist first.

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