list_simdasi_tables_by_subject

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's purpose ('List') and does not mention any additional behaviors such as pagination, ordering, result format, or that it is a read-only operation.

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 concise sentence that starts with the core action and resource, then adds necessary details. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 is minimally sufficient for a simple list tool with fully documented parameters, but it lacks any mention of return values or behavior. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, a bit more context could improve completeness.

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 100% and the schema already describes both parameters in detail. The description repeats the same information (e.g., '7-digit MFD' and 'from list_simdasi_subjects') without adding new semantic value, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 explicitly states that this tool lists SIMDASI tables filtered by area and subject, which clearly distinguishes it from broader siblings like list_simdasi_tables. The verb 'List' plus the resource and filter criteria make the purpose specific and 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 clearly communicates the required inputs (wilayah and id_subjek) and implies the tool should be used when these are known. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidelines.

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