List public moderation reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions authorization context but does not state whether this is read-only, whether data is cached locally, how many reports are returned, pagination behavior, or whether calling it has side effects. The one behavioral hint about authorization is useful but thin.

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 a single short sentence that front-loads the resource and audience. It is concise and has no filler, though it is arguably too brief to carry the needed behavioral detail.

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 listing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a 0%-covered enum parameter, the description is incomplete. It omits return format, ordering, pagination, and filter semantics, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% and the single status parameter has an enum but no descriptions. The description does not explain the status filter, its allowed values, or whether omitting it returns all reports. With one parameter and zero coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 Chinese description states it reads the local public content moderation queue for explicitly authorized reviewers. This gives a verb (read/list) and resource (moderation queue), but it is vague about scope compared to the English title 'List public moderation reports'. Siblings like report_public_content, review_public_report, and list_public_modules are not distinguished, so an agent cannot easily route between queue-listing and report-reviewing tools.

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 context by limiting access to 'explicitly authorized reviewers' for the 'public moderation queue', but it does not say when to use this versus review_public_report or report_public_content. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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