scl_list_reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It is a read operation implied by 'list,' but nothing describes buffering/trigger behavior semantics, whether outputs vary by SCL standard version, or any limitations on what report blocks match. The mention of 'buffering, trigger options and timing' hints at output content but doesn't clarify return structure.

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 is easy to scan. It front-loads the purpose. No wasted words, though it is slightly under-specified for the behavioral and parameter needs.

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 tool has an output schema which may document return values, reducing that burden. However, with zero schema param coverage, no annotations, and 2 parameters (one optional), the description should clarify parameter semantics and use context. The description is minimally complete for a simple listing tool but leaves parameter interpretation entirely to the schema-less params.

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% and there are no enums. The description does not explain what 'path' refers to (SCL file path?) or what 'ied' optional parameter does (filter by IED?). With two parameters and zero schema coverage, the description should compensate but instead provides no parameter guidance at all.

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 states 'List report control blocks with buffering, trigger options and timing.' It identifies the resource (report control blocks), the verb (list), and adds scope detail about what fields are shown. It distinguishes from siblings like scl_list_datasets and scl_list_goose since those target different SCL element 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain the path/ied parameter relationship, nor when one would choose scl_list_reports over scl_summary or scl_list_datasets. No exclusions or use-case context is given.

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