List issue reports for this session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the 'derived state', whether the item 'still needs your account', and the fact that include_body renders the fully-redacted report exactly as it would be uploaded. This is honest and beyond what annotations provide.

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, no filler. The first sentence states the core function; the second explains a key parameter and its purpose. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

With an output schema present and three straightforward parameters, the description covers the essential behavior (list reports, include_body variant). It is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is only 33% (only include_body has a description), so the description compensates by elaborating on include_body: passing it shows the fully-redacted report, framed as 'the honest answer' for user transparency. limit and session_id are not discussed, but they are self-explanatory and typical.

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 tool lists every incident report opened in this session, including derived state and whether action is still needed. This goes beyond the title by specifying the exact scope (session) and output content, and it is clearly differentiable from siblings like feedback_submit_report.

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 context: when you need to see all incidents for the session, and specifically for answering a user's privacy question ('what is being sent about them?'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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