dcs_reports

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

The [READ] tag merely restates the supplied readOnlyHint=true, adding no behavioral context. Nothing is said about pagination, ordering, default limit behavior, or what happens when no reports exist, which is the burden the description should carry for a list endpoint.

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?

One short line with zero waste and the read-only marker front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. There is no structure beyond a single fragment.

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 read-only list tool this could be adequate, but with no output schema, an undocumented limit parameter, and many closely named report siblings, the description leaves an agent without enough to call it confidently or choose it over alternatives.

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% for the single 'limit' parameter, so the schema supplies no meaning at all beyond its name and a default of 100. The description never mentions the parameter, its bounds, or whether it truncates results, leaving the agent to infer its effect.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List report definitions"), which reads clearly as a read operation over report definitions. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like dcs_report_jobs and dcs_report_stats by naming "definitions", but it never explicitly contrasts with them, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to reach for dcs_report_jobs or dcs_report_stats instead, and no stated prerequisites. An agent must guess the boundary between listing definitions and listing jobs or stats.

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