list_saved_queries

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It describes the listing behavior and parameter effects, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention authentication requirements, or note any potential side effects or limitations (e.g., pagination). The description is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 well-structured with an introductory sentence, context about saved queries, usage guidance, and parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose and workflow.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, workflow, and parameters thoroughly. However, it could mention whether the result is paginated or if there is a limit on the number of queries returned, making it slightly 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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains each parameter in detail: response_mode has three enumerated values with descriptions of the data each returns, and name_contains is clearly described as a case-insensitive substring filter. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of description.

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?

Clearly states it lists saved SQL queries in the current workspace, identifies them as reusable snippets from SQL Lab, and distinguishes from get_saved_query by noting that this tool is used to discover query IDs. The verb 'list' and resource 'saved queries' are 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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool to discover query IDs, then pass one to get_saved_query for full detail. This provides a clear workflow. However, it does not mention when not to use it or contrast with alternative tools like run_sql.

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