List Schema Objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' is redundant. The description adds filtering and pagination behavior, but this is largely a restatement of input schema capabilities. It does not disclose edge cases, connection requirements, or output structure beyond the schema. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 two sentences plus an example, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it lists, the second notes read-only and filtering/pagination, and the example shows syntax. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, read-only nature, filtering, pagination, and an example. It assumes the database is already connected, which is implied by 'in the connected database.' It doesn't mention response_format, but that is documented in the schema. Overall, it is complete enough for an AI to use 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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a concrete example ('objectType='tables', schemaName='dbo', limit=20') which illustrates usage but doesn't provide new semantic meaning beyond the schema. The baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: 'Lists tables, views, stored procedures, or functions in the connected database.' This uses a specific verb (lists) and resource (schema objects), and distinguishes from siblings like mssql_get_table_data or mssql_get_schema. The inclusion of an example further clarifies the intent.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: it operates on the connected database, is read-only, and supports filtering and pagination. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the 'read-only' and 'connected database' hints give usage context. The example demonstrates a typical invocation, but it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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