superset_rls_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral nuance: get_all ignores page/page_size. It also explains what RLS is. However, it does not mention permissions, error conditions, or whether the list is scoped to the current user or includes all rules. For a read-only list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and includes a structured Args block. It is a bit longer than necessary, but every line provides useful information. The RLS context sentence is a helpful addition, not wasted 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?

Given that an output schema exists (though not shown) and this is a simple paginated list tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, and one behavioral quirk. It lacks explicit guidance on how this relates to superset_rls_get (singular) or any security context, but the essentials are present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents all four parameters with meaningful details: page (starting from 0), page_size (max 100), q (RISON filter for searching), and get_all (ignores page/page_size). This adds significant value beyond parameter names.

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 and resource: 'Get the list of Row Level Security rules.' It also adds a brief explanation of RLS ('adds a WHERE clause to queries for specific roles'), which clarifies the domain. The name and description clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like superset_rls_get, superset_rls_create, etc.

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 when to use the tool via its purpose and includes parameter-level guidance (e.g., get_all for automatic pagination). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as superset_rls_get or mention scenarios where it should not be used. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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