describe_report_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those hints: it 'reads a bundled catalog (no network),' so it is a low-cost operation with no external side effects. This explains why the tool is safe and cheap to call repeatedly.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed immediately by usage guidance and a cost note. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema or annotation details.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, full schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, when to use it, what it reads, why it is cheap, and how it relates to apply_report_operations. The presence of an output schema also removes the need to describe return values.

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%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description in the schema, including examples and purpose. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but it does provide helpful framing by mentioning 'object's data roles' and catalog categories. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation 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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Discover what a Visual Analytics report can contain — operations and objects.' It explicitly names the consumer of this knowledge ('before calling apply_report_operations'), which distinguishes this tool from its siblings by stating its role as a preparatory discovery step.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call this to learn how to build a report before calling apply_report_operations.' It also positions the tool as the cheap, offline alternative to guessing at data roles, making it clear when an agent should prefer this lookup over trial and error.

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