list_partitions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait, and lists the returned fields. It does not disclose potential limitations like pagination, but for a simple list operation this is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element—the verb, scope, and output fields—earns its place.

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 description provides the output fields and scope, which is sufficient for a list tool with two parameters. It lacks explicit return format details, but the field list implies a structured result. No output schema exists, so this is acceptable.

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 50%, and the description adds meaning to the 'table' parameter by clarifying it can be used for the whole model or restricted to one table. However, it does not address 'sessionId' beyond what the schema shows, so the compensation is partial.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'partitions', and explicitly defines the scope ('whole model or one table') and the fields returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_partition, delete_partition, and refresh_partition.

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 for read-only inspection of partitions, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The 'Read-only' note provides some guidance, and the scope clarification helps, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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