list_saved_queries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the listing function and optional label search, but does not mention pagination behavior (page/page_size), sort order, or return format. This is a significant gap for a list tool with pagination parameters.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple list operation with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps. It does not explain pagination mechanics, what fields are returned, or the exact behavior of label search. However, given the tool's low complexity, this is not severely incomplete.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only briefly hints that 'search' is a label search, but does not explain the page or page_size parameters (e.g., zero-indexing, defaults, or effect). The schema titles and defaults help, but the description adds little semantic value beyond what is already inferable.

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 saved SQL queries, with an optional label search. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_saved_query, which retrieves a single query, and create/update_saved_query. The verb 'list' plus the resource 'saved SQL queries' is specific and unambiguous.

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 its use for listing queries, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_saved_query). No exclusions or context are provided, so the usage guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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