get_reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—e.g., return format, filtering semantics, or pagination implications—beyond the raw 'list' operation. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but description adds zero value.

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 with no unnecessary words. It directly states the action and resource. While minimal, it is appropriately concise for a simple list operation and contains no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with 7 filter parameters and no output schema, the one-line description is insufficient. It does not clarify what information is returned (e.g., report metadata, fields), the effect of combining filters, or default behavior (e.g., whether all reports are returned or only accessible ones). The agent is left to deduce these from parameter names and sibling tools, which is incomplete for correct invocation.

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%, so all 7 parameters (limit, filter, offset, group_id, name_filter, report_type, include_nextgen) are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden.

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 'List reports from LogicMonitor' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (reports), making the primary purpose clear. It differentiates from the singular 'get_report' sibling by indicating a plural collection, though it does not explicitly name any alternative or scope conditions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_report', 'get_report_groups', or 'get_scheduled_reports'. No when-not conditions or alternative references are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name alone.

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