list_saved_queries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists queries, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON list of query names). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the key action ('List all saved...'), making it easy to scan and understand. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to defining what the tool does, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate as a basic overview. It covers the what and where, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, output format, or integration with siblings. For a read-only listing tool, this is minimally viable but leaves gaps that could hinder effective use by an agent.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none to explain. This earns a baseline score of 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing schema information and avoids unnecessary complexity.

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') and resource ('all saved (named) Athena queries'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies the scope ('available in your AWS account'), which helps distinguish it from tools that might operate on different resources or scopes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_saved_query' or 'get_result', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing AWS credentials), compare it to siblings like 'run_saved_query' for executing queries or 'get_result' for retrieving results, or indicate scenarios where listing queries is appropriate (e.g., before selecting one to run). This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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