Workbooks List Reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context annotations cannot convey: it auto-paginates to the last page, merges `entries` from every page, passes through `total` when present, and forces `nextPage` null / `hasMore` false. That is real behavioral value, though the cost of fetching every page (call volume/latency) goes unmentioned.

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 one-line purpose is well front-loaded, but the pagination sentence is dense and cluttered with RST-style double-backtick markup and nested parentheticals ('``hasMore`` false where Sigma sends it'), which makes it harder to parse than needed.

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?

An output schema exists, so the detailed enumeration of returned keys is partly redundant, while more useful gaps remain: no clarification of which sibling to prefer, no note that all pages are fetched (potential latency/rate cost), and no indication of what a 'report' is relative to a workbook. Adequate but not complete for a tool with ~100 siblings.

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 coverage is 0% and the single `limit` parameter has no schema description. The description compensates by clarifying '`limit` is the page size' — i.e., a paging control, not a cap on total results returned, which is a genuinely non-obvious distinction given that all pages get read.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'List all reports in the organization.' An agent knows it returns reports, not workbooks/pages/elements. However, it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling 'workbooks_list_all_reports', which appears to do something similar, leaving ambiguity about which to pick.

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 statement of when to use this versus 'workbooks_list_all_reports', 'workbooks_list_report_pages', or the dataset/element listing siblings. The reader must infer usage purely from the name and the one-line purpose.

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