List Reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavior of optional filtering by simulation but does not disclose whether the response contains full report content or just metadata, nor how the 'limit' parameter affects the 'all' claim. Adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It clearly states the action, the object, and the optional modifier. Every word earns its place.

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 listing tool with rich annotations and complete parameter schema, the description covers the core functionality. It lacks explicit mention of the return format or pagination behavior, but given the low complexity and the absence of an output schema, it is mostly adequate. A slightly more informative alternative (e.g., naming a sibling for detail retrieval) would push it higher.

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 100%—both 'limit' and 'simulation_id' are already described in the schema. The description only rephrases the filter option ('optionally filtered by simulation') without adding new parameter meaning, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'generated reports' and scope 'all'. It distinguishes from siblings like mirofish_get_report by emphasizing the plural/list nature, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 when you need to see all reports, optionally filtered by simulation, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like mirofish_get_report or mirofish_get_report_by_simulation. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so it remains at the minimum viable level.

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