list_outputs_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does well: it reveals that results are lightweight one-row-per-run entries, that payloads are deliberately excluded to keep browsing cheap, and enumerates the returned fields. It is silent on auth or rate-limit behavior, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and ordering, followed by the payload-exclusion rationale and sibling routing. Every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 is a simple two-parameter read and an output schema exists, so return values need no expansion. The description covers purpose, cost rationale, and sibling routing, leaving only minor gaps such as pagination behavior for large histories.

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 100% and both parameters (limit, report_name) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail (no syntax, defaults, or filtering semantics) beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('List saved report outputs (the run history)') plus ordering ('newest first'), and explicitly contrasts itself with get_output_tool, delete_output_tool, and prune_outputs_tool. An agent can distinguish this browse-the-history tool from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

It routes the agent explicitly: use get_output_tool to pull one run's findings, and delete_output_tool / prune_outputs_tool to prune. That gives clear selection criteria against the closest alternatives, though it does not state an explicit 'when not to use this' condition or any prerequisite/permission requirement.

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