list_reports

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

Beyond the read-only and open-world annotations, the description discloses pagination behavior, the shape of the response envelope, the meaning of 'truncated', and the nuance that 'total' may be null. It also warns to check truncated before assuming completeness, providing valuable behavioral context that annotations do not fully cover.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, a concise pagination note, and a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and provides details in an orderly manner.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return envelope. It covers purpose, parameters, pagination, the relationship to get_report, and the caveat about truncated sets. Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 optional params, paginated response), this description is complete and self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility. It explains all three parameters: definition_id as an optional report definition UUID, limit with a range (1–200) and default, and target as an Aria target name from config. This greatly adds meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 generated reports with optional filtering by report definition. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly pointing users to get_report for status and download URLs, and the name 'list_reports' differentiates from generate_report, delete_report, and list_report_definitions.

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?

It provides context for when to use this tool: to list generated reports, filter by definition, and then use get_report for details. While it doesn't explicitly say 'use list_report_definitions for definitions,' the phrase 'generated reports' and the mention of get_report imply the distinction. It also gives a practical tip to check truncated before treating the result as complete.

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