list_bookmarks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently indicates the tool performs a read-only listing and specifies the exact data elements returned, which goes beyond a mere restatement of the tool name. It does not, however, mention any potential side effects, error conditions, or permission requirements, but for a simple list operation this is adequate.

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, well-structured sentence that starts with the action and object, then lists the specific fields returned. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information.

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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states what the tool does and what data comes back. It could benefit from explicitly tying the reportSessionId to the 'report' being referenced, but given the simplicity of the operation, the description is sufficient.

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 parameter (reportSessionId) with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain this parameter. The parameter name itself is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond the schema in explaining what the session ID is or how it should be provided. This is a clear gap given the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'the report's bookmarks' and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, displayName, active page, visual ids hidden). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_bookmark, delete_bookmark, and update_bookmark, which perform different actions.

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 implies usage by its very nature: it lists bookmarks. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., needing an active report session). The context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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