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 filtering is optional and that it returns a listing rather than data. However, it doesn't disclose pagination, response volume, or whether 'required filters' are full or abbreviated. For a read-only listing tool, the disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences that are dense with information - return fields, filtering behavior, workflow guidance, and sibling-tool routing. No filler. Slightly longer than strictly minimal, but each clause earns its place by aiding agent selection and next steps.

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 discovery/list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, output contents, filtering, and next-step routing. The main omission is lacking detail on the structure of the returned list (e.g., whether required filters come as a list or string), but this is modest for a discovery tool.

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 category parameter, but the description compensates well by explaining what category does, providing examples ('Financial', 'Leasing', 'Tenant'), noting it's optional, and advising to omit it initially to see all categories. This adds meaningful usage insight beyond the raw schema.

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 a specific verb+resource ('List the available AppFolio reports') and enumerates the return fields (slug, name, category, required filters), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like run_report, describe_report, and call_endpoint. It also explains the tool's role in the discovery workflow.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('to discover which report to run') and how it fits with alternatives ('then call describe_report for its parameters and run_report to execute it'), naming sibling tools directly. It also explains the category filtering use case and suggests 'call without args first to see all categories'.

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