report_get

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's added value is in describing the return artifacts: a summary plus links to offline HTML and raw results. That is genuinely useful behavioral context absent from structured fields, since no output schema exists. It stops short of noting failure behavior when no run/report is present.

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?

Two short sentences with the default behavior front-loaded and the return content second. Nothing is padded, though the word "truthful" is slightly unusual phrasing that could be more concrete (e.g. 'honest about missing results').

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 single-parameter, non-destructive read tool with no output schema, the description covers the call decision and the shape of the response (summary + links). Gaps are minor: where the directory is resolved relative to, and what happens when no report exists.

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% and the single parameter `directory` is undocumented in the schema, but the description supplies its meaning (a report directory) and, crucially, its optional default behavior (omit to get the latest run). Path format or rooting is not stated, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (read a report) and states the two modes: the latest run, or a specified report directory. It also previews what comes back (summary plus links to HTML and raw results), which separates it from siblings like test_status or traceability_get. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource is 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 phrase "the latest run or a specified report directory" implicitly tells the agent to omit the parameter for the newest run and pass it to target a specific one. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools, no preconditions (e.g. that a run must exist), and no exclusion cases. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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