list_table_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds context about the return shape ('{count, records} or {error}') and error conditions when a table/plugin is unavailable, which goes beyond annotation coverage.

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?

Three concise sentences, each carrying useful information. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the description avoids repetition or unnecessary detail.

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 read-only annotation and the absence of an output schema, the description still covers purpose, scope, types of artifacts, return shape, and error behavior. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect and when to call the tool.

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 100%, with both 'table' and 'limit' described. The description reinforces that counts are per artifact type, matching the schema's 'per artifact type' for limit, but it does not add substantial new meaning 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 begins with a specific verb ('List') and a well-defined resource ('every configuration artifact on a table'), enumerating the artifact types. It also distinguishes itself from CMDB CI impact, which helps differentiate it from other table-related 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('before changing or removing' a table) and what it is not for ('not CMDB CI impact'). However, it does not name an alternative tool to use for CMDB CI impact, so it falls short of a fully explicit alternative recommendation.

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