list_names

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the cheap token cost, names-only nature, and the exact return format. It does not mention ordering or pagination, but for a simple list tool the provided behavioral details are meaningful and go beyond what the schema offers.

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 key phrase 'Cheap names-only index', and every word earns its place. No fluff or 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?

For a simple single-parameter list tool, the description sufficiently covers purpose, return format, and use case. It doesn't specify whether all rows are returned or sorting, but given the simple scope and rich schema, it is nearly complete.

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 schema already has 100% coverage with a self-explanatory enum and per-parameter description. The tool description adds no additional details about the 'type' parameter, so the baseline of 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?

Clearly states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('names-only index for a database table'), describes the return shape as {id, name}, and differentiates itself from full get_*/search_* dumps. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: for looking up or sanity-checking IDs before wiring them into events. It contrasts with the more expensive 'full get_*/search_* dump', implying the alternative when full records are needed, thus providing clear usage context.

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