h1_list_report_intents

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List report intents,' with no mention of read-only status, pagination behavior, ordering, or potential side effects. The schema implies pagination via page_size and page_number, but the description does not confirm this or any other behavioral traits.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, making it easily scannable. Although minimal, it is efficiently structured with 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 list tool with pagination parameters and several sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a report intent is, how the listing is ordered, whether results are paginated, or what the response format includes (especially since no output schema exists). The agent has insufficient context to invoke the tool reliably.

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 does not mention the parameters page_size or page_number at all. Since the schema is minimal and the description adds no meaning, the agent is left without any explanation of how these pagination parameters affect the listing. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 'List report intents' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (report intents), distinguishing it from siblings like h1_get_report_intent (singular get) and h1_create_report_intent. It is specific and unambiguous, though it lacks any additional context about the scope or content of the listing.

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. With many sibling tools such as h1_list_reports, h1_get_report_intent, and h1_list_report_intent_attachments, the description does not clarify the intended use case or selection criteria, offering zero directional support.

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