fusion_list_reports

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the security boundary, why arbitrary SQL cannot work, how reports are registered, and what each result contains: parameters and defaults. It also discloses that unknown bind parameters are rejected before a round trip. This aligns with the readOnly and idempotent hints and adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the purpose and 'Call this FIRST', then explains why reports are the only path, what the listing contains, and how to handle missing reports. There is no repetition or filler.

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 zero-parameter, output-schema-backed listing tool, the description is fully complete. It covers invocation order, the meaning of results, the security model, and the fallback behavior when no report fits. The presence of an output schema means return-value details do not need to be repeated.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema fully covers this with 100% coverage, so the description has no parameter burden. It still adds useful context about the parameters and defaults exposed by each report, which helps the agent understand what the output means, but this is not required for invoking the tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the BI Publisher reports this server may run.' It also establishes the tool's role as the entry point to every possible query, which clearly distinguishes it from execution tools like fusion_run_report or administrative tools like fusion_author_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?

It explicitly says 'Call this FIRST' and explains that all runnable work is limited to registered reports, so an agent knows to consult this tool before attempting any query. It also gives guidance for the negative case: if no report exists, say so and hand the user the SQL and parameters as a one-time admin task. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to use instead, but the usage context is clear.

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