list_html_reports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it details what is returned (list vs dict), what is not returned (HTML content), the token-saving behavior, and specific error conditions (ValueError for path escape, missing file, or missing metadata). This is thorough and goes beyond the bare minimum.

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 well-structured with a summary sentence, then explanatory paragraphs for modes, arguments, returns, and raises. Every sentence adds meaningful information, and the docstring-like format makes it easy to parse. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite having only one optional parameter, the description covers all aspects: purpose, modes, parameter validation, return types, and error handling. The output schema may provide additional structural detail, but the description alone is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 only parameter, file_name, has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: 'Optional report filename inside reports/ — returns its metadata instead of the listing' explains both the path constraint and the behavioral switch. The Raises section adds validation semantics, making the parameter's role fully clear.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'List HTML reports, or get one report's embedded metadata.' It distinguishes two modes (with and without file_name) and explicitly states it never returns HTML content, setting it apart from sibling tools that probably handle report generation or content.

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 explicitly explains when to use each mode: without file_name for a listing of all reports, with file_name for a single report's metadata. It also says 'Never returns HTML content — metadata only, to avoid token consumption,' giving a clear when-not and rationale. The mention of 'absorbed get_report_info' signals that this tool replaces that function, providing alternative context.

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