get_reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Lists' implies a safe read, and it discloses the shape of the result (report IDs and tab names), but it says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or behavior on an invalid document ID.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the parenthetical return summary adds useful information rather than repeating the name.

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 one-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the essentials of what it returns are covered. The gaps are the unexplained required document ID and the absence of any routing guidance among the many report-related siblings.

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 0% and the description never explains webi_doc_id — where it comes from, its format, or that it is required. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (sheets/tabs in a Web Intelligence document), and even names the returned fields (report IDs and tab names). It is clear enough to distinguish from get_report_elements/get_report_element_data, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: you would call this to enumerate the tabs of a document before drilling into elements. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g. that a valid webi_doc_id must first come from get_documents), and no named alternative.

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