get_report

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it labels the operation as a read, discloses that timed-out reports preserve partial findings and say so, and notes reports are private and read with the user's uxlint login. It also commits to a stable output shape by enumerating the returned fields.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds a distinct fact: use cases, input formats, return payload, and privacy/auth. It is longer than minimal but dense and without filler, though the parenthetical examples could be slightly tightened.

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 output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned grade, deltas, and each finding's fields, and by explaining timeout behavior and auth requirements. It does not cover error cases or exact formatting, but the schema handles parameter formatting, making this complete enough for correct invocation.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the report parameter's accepted URL/path/id forms but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema; detail's full-vs-compact behavior is delegated to audit_url and already covered in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Read an EXISTING report's findings') and immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings by mentioning audit_url and verify_fix. It makes the scope explicit: existing reports, including timed-out ones, not new audits.

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?

It clearly identifies when to use get_report: reports started in the dashboard, lost audit_url calls, or timed-out runs. It does not explicitly say 'use audit_url for new audits', but 'EXISTING' and the audit_url reference make the boundary inferable, giving clear context without a formal when-not clause.

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