list_reports

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing operation but does not disclose pagination, sorting, authentication requirements, or response size limits, leaving important behavioral details undocumented.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear one-line purpose followed by brief parameter explanations. There is no filler or redundant content, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter listing tool with an output schema, this is minimally viable: it states what the tool does and what arguments to pass. It is not fully complete because pagination and authentication prerequisites are not mentioned, but the low parameter complexity and presence of an output schema reduce the burden.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining both parameters. It clarifies that program_slug is the program identifier and provides concrete example values for status, which is especially valuable because the schema defines no enum for valid statuses.

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 names a specific verb (list), resource (vulnerability reports), and scope (submitted to a program), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_report or list_report_comments, but the verb and resource are clear enough to distinguish the main intent.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need the reports submitted to a program, optionally filtered by status. There is no explicit mention of when to use get_report for a single report or any exclusions, so the guidance is present but minimal.

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