list_table_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: each lane returns {count, records} or {error} if the table/plugin is unavailable. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, though it doesn't cover limit-related 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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then use case, then scope/return format. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return shape ({count, records} or {error}) and explicitly distinguishes config/metadata impact from CMDB CI impact. The tool's complexity (multiple artifact types) is adequately covered for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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% for both parameters (table, limit). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, e.g., it doesn't mention the default limit or how limit interacts with per-type counts. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already carries the parameter detail.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource+scope ('List every configuration artifact on a table') and enumerates the artifact types (business rules, client scripts, UI policies, ACLs, etc.) with per-type counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list individual artifact types.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use it to see what depends on a table before changing or removing it.' It also clarifies a key exclusion ('not CMDB CI impact'), but does not explicitly name an alternative tool for CMDB impact. Thus it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives.

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