analytics_report_requests_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default limit (50) and max (200) to prevent response size issues, but does not clarify the optional app_id behavior, the meaning of include/access_type, or any pagination or filtering behavior. The phrase 'for an app' is ambiguous given app_id defaults to null.

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 short and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second gives a useful limit guideline. There is no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 optional parameters. It lacks parameter semantics, usage examples, and clarity on scope. The limit information is helpful but not sufficient for an agent to confidently invoke this 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the limit parameter (default 50, max 200). The other three parameters (app_id, include, access_type) are left entirely undefined, making it hard to know what values to provide.

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 action (list) and resource (analytics report requests) with a specific scope ('for an app'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like report_requests_list_reports and report_instances_list_segments. The category prefix '[Analytics/Requests]' adds context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions the default limit and maximum limit, which is parameter behavior not selection criteria. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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