frappe_run_report

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

The description states that the tool returns 'columns + result rows', which is basic output behavior. However, with no annotations, it misses safety cues (e.g., read-only nature, potential side effects). It is adequate but not thorough.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It could be improved by adding more detail without losing conciseness, but it is efficient for its length.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about valid report names, filter syntax, and error handling. The current text is too sparse for an agent to use reliably.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions report_name via an example. The filters parameter is completely undocumented; its structure (object, array, or null) and usage are unexplained, leaving the agent guessing.

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 ('Run') and the resource ('Script/Query Report') with a concrete example ('Firearms In Stock'). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'frappe_list_documents' or 'frappe_get_document'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., frappe_list_documents, frappe_run_method), the agent would benefit from explicit when-to-use or comparison hints.

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