list_simulation_reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that there are no side effects and it's read-only, reinforcing the annotations. It also discloses preconditions, which adds value beyond the structured fields.

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 extremely concise, using three short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and provides just enough additional context in follow-up sentences.

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?

Given there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, how to use its output, preconditions, and side effects. It is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter-specific meaning. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the description already explains the tool's output and usage context.

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 'all tabular report names available in the last simulation's SQL output.' The verb 'list' and specific resource 'tabular report names from last simulation's SQL output' make the purpose explicit and distinguish it from siblings like query_simulation_table or view_simulation_report.

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 usage guidance: it tells the agent to use the returned names with 'query_simulation_table' for data retrieval, and specifies preconditions (simulation completed with SQL output). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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