list_reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it returns a list string or error, but it doesn't disclose whether it uses the current workspace context, how it behaves with no workspace, whether it requires permissions, or what the string format is. For a list tool, this is 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 and structured with Args/Returns sections. It front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence. The docstring format is conventional. It earns a 4 because it is brief and clear, though it repeats parameter names from the schema.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only one optional parameter, the description is under-specified. It doesn't explain the relationship to the workspace context, how errors are returned, or whether the list is filtered. Also, sibling tools like set_workspace suggest context matters, but the description doesn't clarify this.

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%, and the description only says workspace is 'Name or ID of the workspace (optional)'. It doesn't add details about how workspace is resolved (e.g., if omitted, does it use the current context set by set_workspace?). This is a notable gap because the context object and optional workspace semantics are ambiguous.

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 and resource: 'List all reports in a Fabric workspace.' It distinguishes the tool as a listing operation for reports. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_workspaces or list_lakehouses, though the resource is specific enough.

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 usage: call this to list reports in a workspace. It mentions the workspace parameter as optional, but it doesn't explain when to use this versus alternatives like get_report or report_export. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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