sigma_list_reports

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

Annotations already confirm read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, it claims to list 'all reports' while the only parameter is a 'limit' with a default of 200, suggesting the result may be truncated. This potential discrepancy is not disclosed, and no extra behavioral context is added beyond the annotations.

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 main action and resource. It is free of unnecessary words and appropriately sized for a simple listing tool. However, it is slightly under-specified due to the missing parameter and alternative guidance, though that is not a conciseness issue per se.

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 is not complete in context. Given the output schema exists, return values are covered, but the description fails to address the 'limit' parameter and the existence of the sibling 'sigma_list_all_reports'. The claim 'all reports' without qualification is misleading, and the tool's relationship to the sibling tool is unclear, leaving gaps for an agent deciding between them.

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 one optional parameter 'limit', but the description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining the purpose or effect of 'limit'. The agent cannot determine how to use or adjust the limit parameter from the description.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'reports', with scope 'all in the organization'. It distinguishes from list_workbooks and other resources, but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'sigma_list_all_reports', which likely has similar or broader behavior. This missing differentiation prevents a perfect score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling 'sigma_list_all_reports'. There is no mention of pagination, limits, or exclusions. The usage is only implied (to list reports) but not contextualized against other list tools.

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