List Reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that the listing is scoped to a project and covers cost and Well-Architected reports. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or default behavior, but the output schema covers return shape, which is acceptable for a read-only list tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated title content. Every phrase — cost, Well-Architected, project — adds meaningful scope 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?

With full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the definition contains the core facts an agent needs: resource type, scope, and filterable categories. The only noticeable gap is explicit sibling routing, which is already accounted for in usage_guidelines.

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?

All five parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to restate them. It adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's enum and default descriptions.

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 a precise action ('List') and resource ('cost and Well-Architected reports') scoped to a project. The plural 'reports' and the named kinds distinguish it from the singular reports_show and the focused reports_cost/reports_waf siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to prefer this tool over reports_show, reports_cost, reports_waf, or reports_rules. The description conveys the basic action but does not state exclusions or mention alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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