Get Reports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It reveals the return JSON structure (items with kind, num_reports, report_reasons; meta with pagination), and how to paginate using next_cursor. It doesn't mention permissions or side effects, but 'list' clearly implies a read-only operation, so the behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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 three sentences: first gives the core purpose, second describes the return format, third gives follow-up actions. Every sentence earns its place, is front-loaded with the main verb, and there is zero redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by detailing the return shape and pagination. It also provides next-step actions. Missing details like error conditions or auth requirements, but for a straightforward listing tool, the description is nearly complete.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning; it only references the 'after' parameter indirectly via next_cursor, which is already described in the schema.

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 posts and comments in a subreddit that have been reported by users or AutoModerator' – a specific verb, resource, and scope that clearly distinguishes it from sibling moderation tools like get_modqueue or get_spam. It also names the form of returned items, reinforcing the purpose.

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 explains exactly what content is covered (reported posts/comments) and points to alternatives for managing reports (reddit_ignore_reports, reddit_approve/remove). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling listing tools, so it's clear when to use it but not when to choose a different list tool.

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