list_all_generated_reports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the scope ('across all configurations') and the action ('List'), which implies a safe read operation. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, or any potential side effects, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 one sentence of six words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place; zero waste.

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 simple list operation with well-documented pagination params, the description is adequate but lacks context about what 'generated reports' includes (e.g., file types, time range) and how this differs from list_report_generated. No output schema exists, so the description could usefully state the return format, but it does not.

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 100% because both `limit` and `offset` are documented in the schema. The tool description adds no extra param meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('generated reports'), and provides scope ('across all configurations'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_report_generated or list_all_report_schedules. It is specific and immediately understandable.

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. It does not mention that list_report_generated might be filtered by schedule or that list_all_report_schedules lists schedules rather than report files. There is no context on ideal use cases or exclusions.

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