list_lakehouses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the return shape ('a string containing the list of lakehouses or an error message') and the read-only nature is implied by 'List.' It does not clarify behavior when workspace is null, or whether it uses the currently selected workspace, which leaves some ambiguity.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The Args/Returns structure is easy to scan, though the ctx line adds little value for the agent since ctx is not a schema parameter.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and return type. It is incomplete on behavior when workspace is omitted and on how the result relates to the current context, but it is adequate for a low-complexity tool.

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 only defines workspace as a nullable string with a default of null. The description adds meaningful semantics by stating workspace can be a 'Name or ID' and is optional. This compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage, though the mention of ctx is not reflected in the schema.

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 clear, specific verb and resource: 'List all lakehouses in a Fabric workspace.' This unambiguously identifies the operation and scope. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like list_warehouses or list_tables, so it stops short of a 5.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you need to enumerate lakehouses in a workspace. However, it does not state when to prefer this over related tools or what happens when workspace is omitted. There is no exclusions or alternative guidance.

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