List Reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds the resource and filter options but does not mention return format, pagination behavior, or any other contextual details like rate limits. Consistent with annotations, but the added value beyond them is minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by optional filters. Every word earns its place; no fluff 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?

For a simple list tool with robust annotations and fully described parameters, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states the purpose and the key filtering options. It could optionally clarify that it returns a list of jobs, but the tool name and verb already imply this. Given no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (skip, limit, status, report_type) described in the input schema. The description's mention of 'filtered by type or status' adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 report jobs and supports optional filtering by type or status. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('report jobs'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that generate or fetch individual reports like lyzr_report_usage_by_agent or lyzr_report_get_status.

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 context: this is for listing report jobs with optional filters. It does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool over alternatives, but the scope is unambiguous given the listing purpose and the sibling 'get_status' tool. No exclusions are stated, but the implied usage is straightforward.

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