sigma_list_report_elements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name implies. It does not mention pagination, return format, or whether hidden elements are included, which would be useful 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 exceptionally concise and well-structured: a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the purpose without any 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify what 'elements' means in the context of a report, which could be ambiguous given the many sibling list tools. It would benefit from a brief elaboration on the type of elements returned or usage context.

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 provides no description for the report_id parameter (0% coverage). The description only implies that report_id identifies the report, but does not explain how to obtain it, its format, or any constraints. This minimal compensation is insufficient for an undocumented parameter.

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 uses the verb 'list' and specifies the resource as 'elements in a report', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sigma_list_workbook_elements and sigma_list_data_model_elements. It lacks additional scope qualifiers (e.g., 'all' or 'page') that might further refine its meaning, but it is still specific enough.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, usage context, or reference to similar tools such as sigma_list_workbook_page_elements, making it hard for an agent to decide when this is the appropriate choice.

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