superset_report_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It does describe pagination behavior (page, page_size, get_all) and clarifies that reports and alerts are different types. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, and it does not mention any potential side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The verb 'List' implies a read operation, but this is not stated explicitly.

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 well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, two short explanatory sentences about reports vs alerts, and an organized Args section with examples. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan.

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?

The description thoroughly explains the purpose, the resource types, and all parameters. The output schema exists, so return values are covered. It falls slightly short in not providing explicit use-case guidance (e.g., when to use this vs superset_report_get), but for a list operation with such detailed parameter documentation, it is largely complete.

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 description provides extensive parameter details that the input schema lacks (schema coverage is 0%). It explains the meaning of page (starting from 0), page_size (max 100), get_all (ignores page/page_size), and gives concrete RISON filter examples with syntax for filtering by name, type, and active status. This far exceeds what the schema offers.

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 function: 'List Superset reports and alerts.' It also distinguishes between reports and alerts, which adds specificity. This differentiates it from sibling tools like superset_report_get (which retrieves a single report) and other list tools for different resource types.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as superset_report_get or superset_report_create. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' and the resource type, but no explicit context is given.

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