list_csa_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the action and inputs, but does not disclose whether pagination applies, what the response contains, or how the optional subject parameter behaves when omitted. The description omits the 'page' parameter entirely, leaving agents to infer behavior from the schema.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the action and key inputs. There is no filler or redundant phrasing, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values, pagination behavior, and the optionality of parameters. It fails to do so, leaving agents without sufficient context to predict the tool's output or handle all parameters correctly. It only covers the core action, not the broader context needed for a 3-parameter tool.

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?

The schema already describes all three parameters (page, domain, subject) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to carry much parameter-specific weight. The phrase 'for a given domain and subject' slightly reinforces the role of two parameters, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The 'page' parameter is not mentioned in the description.

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 'List CSA tables for a given domain and subject' clearly identifies the action (list), the resource (CSA tables), and the key inputs (domain and subject). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_csa_categories and list_csa_subjects, which target different resources.

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 used to list CSA tables filtered by domain and subject, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as list_csa_categories or list_csa_subjects. There are no exclusions or 'use X instead' instructions.

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