List partitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral transparency. It does detail the return object structure (partitioned, strategy, partitions), which is helpful. No contradictions with annotations.

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: first states purpose, second describes return format. It's efficient, front-loaded, and contains no superfluous information.

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 the output schema is described in detail, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It could mention behavior for non-partitioned tables (e.g., returns partitioned=false), but that is implied. The optional database parameter is well-documented.

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 only 33% (only the database parameter has a description). The description does not explain the required 'table' and 'schema' parameters beyond their names, leaving ambiguity about possible values or constraints.

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's purpose: 'Describe how a table is partitioned (strategy and bounds) and list its partitions.' It specifies the verb (describe/list) and resource (table partitions), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables or list_indexes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it's for viewing partitioning info, but doesn't provide when-not or alternative recommendations. The database parameter has a usage hint ('omit for the primary'), but overall lacks explicit context.

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