List Reports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds the useful ApiAccessible=true constraint and the relationship to run_report, but it does not disclose whether the list includes all reports or only runnable ones, nor does it mention any output format, pagination, or ordering. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes only the essential additional detail about ApiAccessible. No wasted words.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does and the key prerequisite for running reports. It could have mentioned what fields are returned (e.g., report ID, name) or whether the list includes all reports vs. only runnable ones, but given the low complexity, it 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline 4 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 clearly states the tool lists reports for the Impact.com account, using the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'reports'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'run_report' by noting the ApiAccessible=true prerequisite for running reports.

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 provides clear context by explaining that only reports with ApiAccessible=true can be run via run_report, implying this tool is used to discover available reports and check that flag before running. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this when you need to list reports' or contrast with other list tools beyond run_report.

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