airtable_list_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explicitly states the operation is read-only, safe to call repeatedly, has zero base mutations, and requires a Personal Access Token with 'schema.bases:read'. This goes well beyond the minimal requirement, though it does not mention potential response size, pagination, or error behavior.

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 well-organized with clear section headers, front-loads the core purpose, and uses every sentence to convey either the scope, usage rules, or operational details. No wasteful filler or repetition of schema content.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the categories of returned data (tables, fields, IDs, types, select options, views). It also covers prerequisites (auth scope) and safety (read-only), making it fully sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 already fully documents base_id, including a format example, so schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces that IDs are needed for interface/webhook configuration but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 opens with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('schema structure of an Airtable base'), then enumerates exactly what is returned: tables, field names, IDs, types, select options, and views. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it is for schema discovery, not rows or modifications.

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?

Dedicated 'When to Use' and 'When NOT to Use' sections provide explicit decision rules and name the correct sibling alternatives ('airtable_query_records' for row values, 'airtable_modify_schema' for field changes). An agent can confidently route to this tool versus its siblings without additional inference.

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