List available reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a read-only operation. The description adds the 'built-in' scope and the relationship to run_report, but does not disclose return format or other behavioral details, which would add further value beyond the annotations.

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 (13 words) that immediately conveys the action and target, with no unnecessary words. Excellent structure.

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, read-only, zero-parameter list tool, the description is mostly complete: it tells the agent what to expect (built-in reports) and how they might be used (with run_report). However, it does not explicitly state the return content (e.g., report names, IDs), leaving a small gap.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-related detail, but none is needed. The mention of report categories gives context but is not parameter-specific.

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 clearly and specifically states the tool's function: listing Upmind's built-in reports, with concrete examples (revenue, churn, tax, transactions) and a pointer to run_report. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_report and other list_* resources.

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 implies usage: use this to discover available reports, then run them with run_report. It names the alternative tool (run_report) and gives context, but does not explicitly state exclusions or when not to use it.

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