set_list_buffer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It states 'Appends one step to the table's M query' and labels itself a 'Perf heuristic', providing some behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose permanence, reversibility, or potential interactions with repeated calls, which is a notable gap.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Perf heuristic'), followed by parameter hints and a side-effect note. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary wording.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and side effect but lacks explicit usage boundaries, prerequisites, or what happens to the M query on repeated invocations. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a mutation tool with 5 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 60%, and the description adds some meaning by explaining 'kind = list | table' and 'referenceExpr is the raw M reference to buffer', but these largely mirror schema descriptions. It does not compensate for undocumented parameters like sessionId, table, or partitionName, which remain schema-only.

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 states the tool wraps a referenced list/table in List.Buffer/Table.Buffer, a specific action with a clear resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling set_query_buffer by noting it 'complements' that tool, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 context as a 'perf heuristic' for repeated reads and explicitly mentions complementing set_query_buffer, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over set_query_buffer or list exclusions, leaving some room for interpretation.

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