list_my_reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds the meaningful data-scope caveat that this page omits report activity and defines pagination start/limit. It doesn't discuss ordering or total counts, but the added constraints go beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste; the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the scope caveat and the alternative tool. Every sentence 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described; combined with the annotations, the description covers what the tool returns (a paginated, activity-free list of the caller's reports) and how to paginate. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 carry the burden, and it does supply real semantics: page_number is 1-based and page_size is bounded 1-100. It omits the default of 25 and any ordering implications, so it compensates substantially but not fully.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (reports) plus the scope qualifier 'submitted by the authenticated hacker', which distinguishes it from sibling report tools like get_report and get_report_intent. It also explicitly names get_report as the tool for the full 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_report when the full report (including report activity) is needed, and explains that this listing excludes that activity. Clear context, though it doesn't mention other siblings such as get_report_intent or list_report_intents.

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