report.get

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns 'review bridge metadata' beyond just the report, which is extra behavioral context. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence with 10 words, no filler. Perfectly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose. Minor gap: does not explicitly state that job_id is the identifier of the report, but this is inferrable. Overall adequate.

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 only parameter, job_id, has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not mention job_id or clarify its role. With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add any parameter meaning beyond the name and type.

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 one persisted report plus review bridge metadata. The verb 'get' and specific resource 'report' are unambiguous, and it distinguishes from sibling getters like jobs.get or manifest.get.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While it's a simple getter, the description doesn't note prerequisites (e.g., job must exist) or when other getters (e.g., jobs.get) are more appropriate. Usage is implied but not clarified.

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