report_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the workspace scoping constraint (workspaceId is required). It doesn't mention pagination, sorting, or that only report metadata is returned, but for a simple list operation with read-only annotations, the behavioral context is adequately covered.

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?

A single, clear sentence that zero waste. It front-loads the action and scope. Nothing more is needed for a simple list tool.

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 simple list operation with a single parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that results are limited to the given workspace or that the tool returns report metadata only, but the absence of that is a minor gap. The required workspaceId is clear from the schema.

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 100%: the only parameter workspaceId is documented in the schema as 'The workspace ID'. The description adds no further semantics about the workspaceId (e.g., format, where to find it). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully covers the single parameter.

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 (reports) with a scope qualifier (in a workspace). It is distinguishable from report_get, which retrieves a single report, and from other list tools for different resource types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from report_get_definition or note that it returns only metadata, not full report details.

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 this is for browsing/listing reports in a workspace, which is sufficient given the siblings are clearly named for specific resource types. But it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer report_list over report_get or report_get_definition, nor mention any filtering or pagination considerations. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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