aras_list_reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool lists report configurations and their associated ItemTypes, and gives examples of standard reports. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, any filtering capabilities, or what the output format looks like. The description is honest but minimal.

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 concise, two sentences, and front-loads the main purpose. The example list of standard reports adds value but is slightly verbose. Overall, it's efficient and to the point.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what is listed and gives examples. However, it doesn't mention whether the list is exhaustive, whether there are any filters, or what the output structure is. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate but could be slightly more explicit about the output format.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously, since there are no properties). The description adds context about what the tool returns (report configurations and their ItemTypes), which is useful since there are no parameters to document. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description provides relevant context about the output.

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 states the tool lists report configurations in Aras and mentions the ItemTypes they are attached to, with examples of standard reports. This is a clear verb+resource (list reports) and distinguishes it from siblings like aras_run_report and aras_list_item_types, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.

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 implies this is for listing report configurations, which is distinct from running reports (aras_run_report) or listing item types (aras_list_item_types). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for when this would be needed.

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