evidence_get_reports

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden of safety disclosure; 'Get' reasonably implies a read-only listing operation without side effects. However, it does not explicitly confirm no mutation, permissions, or error behavior, so the disclosure is minimal but acceptable for a get/list tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently communicates the exact purpose without wasting tokens.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the tool's purpose and the schema already documents the parameter and return shape. It lacks explicit guidance relative to sibling tools, but the operation is simple enough that the minimal description suffices.

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 sole parameter 'evidence' is already fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the action ('Get') and the resource ('list of printable reports') for an evidence, making the tool's purpose understandable. It does not explicitly name sibling differentiators like evidence_export_report, but 'list of printable reports' implies a listing rather than an export.

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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as evidence_export_report or evidence_get_sum. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the choice of tool entirely to inference.

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