h1_list_reports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses the ownership scope (authenticated hacker) and read-only nature via 'List'. It adds context beyond the schema, though it omits pagination behavior or response format, which are minor for a list operation.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource, conveying the essential task 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 simple list tool, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the resource and scope. However, it does not mention pagination or return format, and with no output schema, a bit more detail could help. The sibling context and schema constraints still allow an agent to use it correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain page_size or page_number. The names are self-explanatory, but the description provides no defaults, semantics, or relation to pagination, failing to compensate for the low schema 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 clearly states the tool lists reports owned by the authenticated hacker, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like h1_get_report (single report) and h1_create_report (creation).

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 implies usage for listing the authenticated user's reports but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over h1_list_report_intents or provide exclusions. No alternatives are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.

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