report_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It signals a non-mutating operation through 'Lists' and discloses the output composition: names ending in .json and .html. It does not detail sorting, paths, or empty-case behavior, but for a simple read-only listing this is reasonable.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, and the parenthetical adds useful detail without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource, the scope ('saved'), and the returned names. It could be more explicit about the exact return structure, but the naming detail is sufficient for an agent to consume the result.

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 baseline is 4. The description correctly spends no space on parameters, and the naming convention in the description provides the only relevant context an agent needs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') with a concrete resource ('saved run reports') and defines the exact naming pattern (<slug>.json and <slug>.html). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like report_get and report_delete, which operate on individual reports rather than enumerating them.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need the set of saved run report names. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a parameterless enumeration tool the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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