tables_db_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 mentions filtering via query params but fails to disclose critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, any rate limits, pagination details, or what the output format looks like. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and a key feature (filtering). It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the database and table context upfront.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like pagination or authentication needs. For a list operation with multiple parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by hinting at filtering via 'query params,' which loosely relates to the 'queries' parameter, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('list of all the user's rows in a given table'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tables_db_get_row' (which retrieves a single row) or 'tables_db_list_tables' (which lists tables instead of rows), missing full sibling distinction.

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 implies usage through the mention of 'query params to filter your results,' suggesting this tool is for filtered retrieval. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'tables_db_get_row' for single rows or 'tables_db_list_tables' for tables, leaving some ambiguity.

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