sigma_list_report_queries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, permissions, or limitations) beyond what annotations provide, but it does not contradict them either.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It conveys the core purpose efficiently and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple one-parameter structure, output schema presence, and read-only annotations, the description is adequate but somewhat bare. It lacks context about what 'SQL queries' means in this context or how to obtain a report_id, and does not reference related tools. The combination of annotations and schema covers the core, but the description adds minimal extra value.

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%, so the description should compensate, but it only says 'in a report' which gives minimal context for the report_id parameter. It does not explain report_id's format, expected values, or how it relates to the returned queries, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name alone.

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 SQL queries in a report' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (SQL queries in a report), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sigma_list_workbook_queries. It unambiguously identifies the scope as report-level rather than workbook-level.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions, prerequisites, or context about typical use cases. The description is a bare statement with no mention of alternatives, making it hard for an agent to know when to select this over similar list tools.

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