list_relational_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It implies read-only behavior by stating 'list' and 'returns', but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or mention authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then clarifying the return type. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

The description explains the return (OData entity sets) and connects to broader workflow (ETL operations). Without an output schema, it provides sufficient context for a list operation. Could be more complete by explicitly noting that it is the starting point for subsequent queries.

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 100%, providing clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds contextual purpose but no additional meaning beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'relational entities (tables/views) within a specific SAP Datasphere asset'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the scope (all entities in an asset) and the purpose (row-level data access and ETL operations), which is distinct from tools like get_relational_entity_metadata or query_relational_entity.

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 discovery before querying detailed data, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or guidance on specific scenarios.

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