list_error_reports

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses ordering (newest first) and the nature of reports (only remaining record sometimes). However, it does not mention that limit parameter controls count, or if pagination exists. Adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences; first states purpose and ordering, second adds valuable context. No fluff, every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description covers the core purpose but omits the limit parameter. It is adequate for basic use but could be more complete by mentioning the parameter.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to add context like 'Specify the maximum number of reports to return', which would help the agent.

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 clearly states 'List Windows Error Reporting reports, newest first.' This is a specific verb (List) and resource (Windows Error Reporting reports), and it distinguishes from siblings like list_crash_dumps which deal with dump files.

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 when needing to see crash/hang records, especially when no dump files exist, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_crash_dumps or get_crash_history. No exclusions or when-not guidance are provided.

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