reports_list_instances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior: default limit 100, max 200, and instructs to use pagination metadata for additional pages. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond what a simple 'list' implies, though it does not cover auth, ordering, or data freshness.

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 long, front-loaded with the category and clear action. Every sentence earns its place: one defines the tool's purpose and one gives necessary pagination details. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description is minimally viable given the moderate complexity and existing output schema. It covers the required report_id context and limit behavior, but omits semantics for include, granularity, and processing_date, and lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over report-instance siblings. An agent could invoke it with defaults but would be guessing on the optional filtering parameters.

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 for the five parameters. It only explains limit (default 100, max 200) and implicitly report_id, while include, granularity, and processing_date are left entirely to their parameter names with no explanation of format, allowed values, or effects.

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 starts with '[Analytics/Reports] List instances for a specific analytics report.' This clearly states the action (list), the resource (instances), and the scope (specific report), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like report_instances_get or report_instances_list_segments.

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 operational context by mentioning the default limit, max limit, and pagination metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tool comparisons or exclusions are given.

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