list_reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the scoping detail that listing happens in the project's outflow folder, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like recursion, sorting, or access requirements. This is acceptable, though not rich.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and object. There is no filler or redundant information; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

With only one required parameter, a direct description, annotations covering side-effect safety, and an output schema present, the tool is sufficiently documented for an agent to invoke it correctly. No additional details about return format or filtering are needed for this simple listing operation.

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 schema has only one parameter, 'project', with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description clarifies that 'project' refers to the project whose outflow folder will be listed. It does not specify whether the value is an ID, name, or path, but for a single simple string parameter this is minimally sufficient.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('report and log files in the project's outflow folder'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_report, which would read file contents rather than enumerate them.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when an agent needs to enumerate report/log files in a project's outflow folder. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as read_report for file contents, so the usage guidance is adequate but not fully explicit.

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