List Reputation Reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds only that the tool returns a paginated list, which is expected. It fails to disclose any additional behavioral traits such as result ordering, scope of 'your' (e.g., user or workspace), or handling of empty results.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence overview followed by a clear list of parameters with defaults. Every sentence is necessary and efficiently structured, with no extraneous information.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description provides minimal return information ('Paginated list of reputation reports'), omitting details like pagination metadata, report fields, or error handling. However, considering the tool's simplicity and rich annotations, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters (page and limit) fully described in the schema. The description simply restates their defaults, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states the tool lists 'your reputation reports with pagination,' specifying the verb 'list' and the resource 'reputation reports.' However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like influiq_get_reputation_report or influiq_list_analyses, which could cause confusion.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to list reports versus retrieving a single report, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for pagination usage.

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