wetrack_get_reports_catalog

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It transparently states role-based scoping and the output fields (dataSource, metric/dimension/chartType defaults), and the verbs 'List'/'Shows' imply a read-only operation. It does not discuss pagination, errors, or auth, but for a zero-parameter catalog these are minor gaps.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and immediately followed by the return-value details. No filler, repeated information, or redundant phrasing.

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 an empty input schema and an output schema present, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though explicit sibling differentiation would strengthen it further.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so there are no parameter meanings to document. The description adds no parameter detail, which is unnecessary here; baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 specific verb ('List') and a bounded resource ('every report available to the current user's role'), then enumerates the exact fields returned (dataSource type, default metric/dimension/chartType). This makes it distinguishable from sibling report tools like wetrack_get_reports by framing it as a widget-creation catalog rather than a report-data fetch.

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 a clear use-case signal ('to use when creating a widget'), but it never names alternatives or says when not to use this tool vs wetrack_get_reports/wetrack_get_project_reports. The guidance is therefore implied rather than explicit, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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