List Serials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'returns' data, which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, disclose any side effects, authorization requirements, or performance implications. The information is minimal and does not go beyond stating the output content.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and the returned data. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler or redundant phrasing, and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, likely an output schema exists), but the description still fails to explain the sole parameter or any usage context. It does not mention how to specify the connection, what happens if it is omitted, or any prerequisites. The output schema may cover return values, but the parameter semantics and usage are left unexplained, making the description insufficient for correct invocation.

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 0% for the single 'connection' parameter, and the tool description does not mention it at all. An agent has no idea what value to provide for this parameter or whether it is required to specify a database connection. The description adds zero meaning beyond the bare type definition.

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 returns CUBRID SERIAL sequences with specific attributes (current value, increment, bounds). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_indexes, describe_table, or table_row_counts, which deal with different database objects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where this tool is preferred over siblings like execute_query or schema_definitions. The agent is left to infer that it should be used when serial information is needed, but no explicit direction is given.

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