list_report_definitions

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotent) are already present, and the description further clarifies that it returns templates and allows filtering. No contradictions. It could add details about pagination or behavior with large result sets, but the output schema covers return structure.

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 concise docstring with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and clearly documents each parameter in a structured way. Each sentence 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?

With comprehensive annotations, an output schema, and clear parameter descriptions, the tool is well-covered. A minor gap: no mention of whether the list is paginated or if name_filter supports wildcards. Otherwise complete.

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 must explain parameters. It does so thoroughly: name_filter as case-insensitive substring, limit as max (1-500, default 100), target as optional with config default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's title-only fields.

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 it lists report definition templates in Aria Operations, using '[READ]' to denote a read operation. It distinguishes from siblings like list_reports (which lists generated reports).

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 explains parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage context is implied by the name and sibling tools, but no clear guidance on when to choose list_report_definitions over list_reports or other list tools.

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