run_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Execute' which implies a read operation that runs a report, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's safe (non-destructive), what permissions are needed, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient transparency.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and parameters. The Args section is structured clearly. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the parameter explanations into the main description.

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 complexity of executing reports in an ERP system, zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it differs from other data retrieval tools, making it inadequate for confident use.

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. It adds basic semantics by explaining that 'report_name' is the name of the report and 'filters' is an optional JSON string of report filters. However, it doesn't provide examples, format details, or explain what constitutes a valid report name, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Execute' and the resource 'ERPNext report', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its many siblings (like run_method or get_list_with_summary) that might also execute operations or retrieve data, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 siblings like get_list_with_summary, get_document, and run_method that might serve similar data retrieval purposes, there's no indication of when run_report is the appropriate choice, leaving usage unclear.

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