Programmability List Sequences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that rows include quoted_name and quoted_qualified_name, but this is output detail rather than behavioral context such as permissions, pagination, or filtering 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?

The description is two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence is somewhat dense and partly redundant with the output schema, but overall it remains compact.

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?

The tool has annotations and an output schema, which reduce the description's burden. However, it does not explain the pattern parameter or give usage guidance, so it is only minimally complete for a filtered list tool with three optional parameters.

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 coverage is 67%, but the pattern parameter has no description in either the schema or the tool description. The database and schema_name parameter descriptions talk about quoting names rather than explaining their filtering meaning, and the tool description does not compensate for the undocumented pattern parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: list auto-increment sequences, scoped to a database or schema. It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools such as programmability_list_functions or tables_list_tables.

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 states the listing scope but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions such as when to prefer database versus schema filtering. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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