list_constraints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'List', which implies read-only, but does not disclose permissions, potential performance caveats when listing all tables, or the exact return structure. This is insufficient for a tool with zero 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core functionality and scope economically without wasting words.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description only covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics. It does not explain return format, error behavior when a table name is invalid, or any prerequisites. This is adequate for a simple listing tool but leaves gaps for an agent to use it fully.

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 schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining that tableName is optional and defaults to all tables, and by enumerating the constraint types included (PK, FK, Unique, Check), which goes beyond the schema's simple 'filter constraints' wording.

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 explicitly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'constraints', and further specifies the types (PK, FK, Unique, Check) and scope (for a table or all tables). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_table_indexes or describe_table.

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 the tool is used when constraint details are needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. It lacks clear guidance on selecting this tool among related sibling tools.

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