expensify_list_reports

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, mutability, side effects). The only information is about routing, which does not help understand the tool's behavior.

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 very short (two sentences), but it lacks substance. While it is concise in length, it fails to convey essential information, making it under-specified rather than effectively concise.

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 the lack of annotations, the 0% parameter documentation, and the vague description, the tool definition is wholly inadequate for an AI agent to understand its purpose, usage, and behavior. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing description.

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 input schema has a single parameter 'arguments' with 0% schema description coverage. The description merely repeats that it is a JSON string of arguments for the connector operation, adding no semantic meaning 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 'list_reports' which indicates a listing operation, but it does not specify what is being listed (e.g., expense reports, approval reports) or provide any detail about the resource. It is essentially a tautology of the tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes related Expensify tools like expensify_list_expenses and expensify_list_policies, but the description offers no differentiation or context.

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