hex-get-queried-tables

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful access constraint (Enterprise plan gating). It does not confirm this is a safe read-only operation, nor does it mention pagination, result limits, or what happens for non-Enterprise projects.

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?

A single tightly written sentence with the resource up front and the access constraint tucked into a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and access gating adequately. A brief note on the return shape (e.g., list of table names) would fully close the gap, but the omission is minor.

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 schema documents nothing about projectId. The phrase 'queried by a project' only weakly implies the ID format/source; the description neither compensates for the coverage gap nor adds syntax or sourcing detail. With just one self-evident parameter, a 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get the list of warehouse tables queried by a project'), which is far more precise than the terse name suggests, and the parenthetical scoping note adds precision. It stops short of naming which sibling it contrasts with, but no sibling overlaps meaningfully with this resource.

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?

It states one real precondition, '(Enterprise plan only)', which is genuine usage guidance an agent could not infer elsewhere. However it gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use framing relative to the other project-scoped tools.

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