list_keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that primary keys are flagged with primary=true and that composite keys are supported, which is useful. However, it does not specify whether foreign keys or other key types are included, nor does it mention ordering, pagination, or any side effects, leaving the return scope ambiguous.

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, with two sentences and no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the additional sentence about primary key behavior is relevant. However, it could be slightly more explicit about what 'keys' encompasses, but the structure is efficient.

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, the description provides a reasonable starting point but lacks crucial details about the exact set of keys returned (primary only vs. all constraints) and the output format. With no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without prior context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation, but it does not mention model_id or table_ref at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional meaning, leaving the agent to rely on assumptions about the arguments.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('keys of a table'), and adds detail about primary key representation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'get_key', but the plural 'keys' vs singular 'get' implies a list vs. single-item operation, so purpose is clear but not fully distinguished.

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 enumerating keys but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like 'get_key' or 'list_columns'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case.

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