list_reports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that archived reports are hidden by default, that include_archived reverses this, and that returned records carry an `archived` flag — real behavioral context the schema does not convey. It says nothing about ordering, pagination beyond limit, or permissions, so the disclosure is partial.

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 headline behavior (what is listed, and the archived-filtering rule) is front-loaded in the first two sentences, with parameter detail demoted to a compact Args block. Slight redundancy exists between the Args block and the schema, but it is short and each line adds a default or a pointer.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; the description still notes the per-record `archived` field. Combined with space scoping, the archived default, and the limit default, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though pagination behavior remains unstated.

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, and it does: all three parameters are documented with meaning, the default for limit (50), the default behavior of include_archived, and the cross-tool hint for resolving space_token. It stops short of syntax or format details, but the semantic gaps are filled.

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?

Specific verb+resource with scope: 'List reports in a space', which distinguishes it from siblings like get_report and create_report. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_reports, so the boundary between the two listing/search paths is left for the agent to infer.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description tells the agent to obtain space_token via list_spaces, and treats include_archived as the toggle for hidden records, which implies the natural default case. There is no explicit 'use this instead of search_reports when...' guidance or statement of prerequisites.

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