list_records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the core capabilities but does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only, describe the return format, or mention any side effects. While 'list' implies a read operation, the lack of an output schema and explicit behavioral notes limits transparency.

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 of 14 words, efficiently conveying the primary purpose and key optional features without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description plus the comprehensive parameter descriptions provide a fairly complete picture for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. However, explicitly stating that it returns a list of record objects or confirming the read-only nature would enhance completeness.

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 input schema provides comprehensive descriptions for all 7 parameters, including examples for 'sort' and 'where', and the 'table_id' description references list_tables. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already covers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with the resource 'records from a table', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like list_tables (which lists tables) and get_record (which fetches a single record). It also enumerates key optional capabilities (filtering, sorting, field selection, pagination), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 usage for retrieving table records with flexible options, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like list_linked_records or count_records. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so the agent must infer from context.

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