list_rows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions the basic function and return of row data with cell values, but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, potential large responses, pagination details, or authentication requirements. This is insufficient for a tool with many parameters.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the main action. Every word is relevant, but the structure is flat and misses the opportunity to present critical information in a more scannable format for an AI agent.

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 the tool has 10 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter usage, pagination mechanism, or return format beyond 'row data with cell values'. The output schema is present but not referenced. The description leaves many questions unanswered.

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. However, it only mentions 'optional filtering, sorting, and pagination' without mapping to specific parameters (query, sort_by, limit, page_token). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 action (list rows), the resource (table), and optional capabilities (filtering, sorting, pagination). It distinguishes from siblings like get_row (single row) and delete_row. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the output structure.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_row for a single row). The description implies it is for large or filtered datasets but does not provide context for when-not or mention alternatives.

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