List Structs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'all' structures, yet the schema exposes a pattern filter, creating mild tension, and it says nothing about whether it is read-only, how results are ordered, whether they include member details, or any pagination/rate behavior.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. Minor deduct because 'all' is slightly misleading given the optional pattern filter.

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 read-only list tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. It falls short on routing versus list_local_types and on the meaning of the returned listing, which an agent would need to choose and interpret 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents pattern, timeout, and instance_id; the description adds no syntax, format, or matching semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (structures/unions defined in the database), so an agent knows it retrieves struct/union type definitions. However, it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling list_local_types, which also enumerates type definitions, leaving the boundary between the two tools to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives such as list_local_types or get_struct_info for details on a single struct. The agent must guess which listing tool applies to its situation.

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