list_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. It only states the core action but does not disclose whether the listing is paginated, what fields are returned, or any side effects. For a read-only list, this is minimal transparency.

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 sentence of six words, extremely concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the meaning with no filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no annotations, no output schema), the one-sentence description is mostly complete. However, it does not specify what data the list returns, leaving some ambiguity compared to sibling tools like get_report_preview.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema is vacuously complete. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no irrelevant parameter information.

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 all generated vulnerability reports, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_vulnerability_report and get_report_preview, which perform different actions.

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 this tool is for listing all reports, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as get_report_preview or export_report. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, making usage context only implicit.

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