list_datatables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "List" implies a non-destructive read, but nothing is said about pagination, result limits, scope (all mods vs. current mod), permissions, or return shape.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the resource comes first and the filter caveat follows.

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 one-optional-param list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it never says what a DataTable asset is, whether results span all mods, or what the response contains — details an agent needs before calling.

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 coverage is 0% and the only parameter is a bare "Query" string with an empty default, so the description's phrase "filtered by path substring" is the sole source of meaning. It usefully disambiguates that the filter matches paths rather than names or content, but gives no matching rules (case sensitivity, wildcards).

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 and resource ("List DataTable assets") and adds the filtering capability, so an agent can tell it apart from generic siblings like list_assets or read_datatable. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tools, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

"Optionally filtered" hints at a use case but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never references siblings such as search_assets or list_assets. An agent must infer on its own when this listing tool is preferable to the search or read tools.

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