report_instances_list_segments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully mentions default limit (100), maximum (200), and pagination metadata, which gives some operational transparency. However, it omits other behavioral details such as authentication, error handling, or the meaning of the 'include' parameter, leaving 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 concise: two sentences, with purpose front-loaded and operational limits in the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place, and it is free of fluff or redundant repetition.

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 an AI agent. The 'include' parameter is undocumented and ambiguous, and no guidance is given on when this tool is appropriate compared to closely related siblings. The pagination and limit details are helpful, but the missing parameter semantics and usage exclusions leave significant gaps.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameters beyond echoing the default limit already in the schema. The 'include' parameter is entirely ambiguous—no meaning, allowed values, or effect is described. instance_id is obvious from name, but the optional parameters lack semantic clarification, so the description fails to add value beyond schema fields.

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's function: 'List segments for a specific analytics report instance.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like report_instances_get (gets an instance) and report_segments_get (gets a single segment). The '[Analytics/Segments]' prefix adds useful 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 implies usage for a specific instance ('for a specific analytics report instance') but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like report_segments_get or reports_list_instances. It lacks any 'when not to use' or alternative naming, so guidance is only implied.

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