list_reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'list all reports generated so far', implying a read-only operation, but fails to mention pagination, ordering, or whether the output includes full report details or just metadata. The presence of an output schema does not absolve the description from adding context.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. No unnecessary words or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (1 required param, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any mention of the output structure (e.g., list of report IDs, titles, timestamps) and does not hint at the schema's contents, which would help the agent anticipate the response format.

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 schema defines one required parameter (engagement_id) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema itself provides no additional info. The description does not elaborate on the parameter's format, constraints, or relationship to the data, leaving the agent to infer meaning solely from the parameter name.

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 'list' and the resource 'reports' within the context of an engagement, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It successfully distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_report and export_report, though it could more explicitly contrast with list_findings or get_engagement.

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 such as list_findings or get_engagement. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, common use cases, or when not to use this tool.

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