matomo_list_report_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the operation is a retrieval from an API endpoint, but does not mention side effects, required permissions, error behavior, or output structure. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior reliably.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that state the action and its purpose. Every word contributes meaning. No fluff or redundant information.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what data the returned list contains, how to interpret the metadata, or how the parameters filter the results. An agent would lack context to use this tool effectively in a real scenario.

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 only 17% (idSite has a description). The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond what is in the schema. With 6 parameters total, the agent receives no guidance on how to use date, period, language, hideMetricsDoc, or showSubtableReports, which would be essential for effective invocation.

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's purpose: 'Recupera lista completa di report compatibili da API.getReportMetadata. Utile per esplorazione.' This is a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('list of compatible reports') with the source API, making it easy for an agent to understand what it does and distinguish from siblings like matomo_get_metadata or matomo_get_processed_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 mentions 'Utile per esplorazione' (useful for exploration), implying a general exploratory context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools are listed but not compared.

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