Reports List Saved Reports

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what is already known, such as output shape, open-world caveats, or any side effects. It is not contradictory, but it contributes no additional transparency.

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 sentence with no filler, so it is structurally clean. However, it is heavily redundant with the tool name and title, essentially repeating them. It is concise to the point of providing minimal added value.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does not convey what the returned list looks like, whether pagination applies, or how this differs from reports_get_saved_report. The schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety, but the description alone leaves the agent without enough behavioral or usage context to confidently select and invoke the tool.

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%, with both 'fields' and 'output_mode' well documented. The description does not add parameter information, but it does not need to because the schema fully explains the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 is concise and clearly states the action and resource: 'List saved reports.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's basic purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling reports_get_saved_report, but the list-versus-get distinction is implicit and fairly obvious.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reports_get_saved_report. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or selection criteria. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and surrounding context.

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