查看已导入报表

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar for the description. The description does add one useful nuance—that only metadata is returned, not report contents—but it says nothing about pagination, limits, or response shape beyond that.

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?

A single clean sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the action (列出/list) before the resource. Nothing extraneous is included, and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 list tool, the combination of structured data and description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: the schema defines the required project_id, limit constraints, and report_type enum; annotations define the safety profile; the description defines the purpose. The only real gap is usage routing guidance, which is not strictly required for a correct call.

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%, so the description must compensate for documenting parameters, but it does not mention project_id, limit, or report_type at all. The parameter names and report_type enum are self-evident, yet the description fully fails to compensate for the undocumented schema, leaving the filtering semantics and limit behavior entirely implicit.

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 (列出/list), a specific resource (报表元数据/report metadata), and a clear scope (项目/project). It also notes the metadata-only nature of the result, which distinguishes it from report_import (importing vs. listing) and from the metric/summary siblings like product_metrics_get and order_summary_get.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It never mentions report_import as the complementary operation, nor does it state any conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites for choosing report_list over the other report-related tools.

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