Get Modeling Worklist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the returned context and the loop-termination signal ('remaining is 0'). It does not discuss ordering guarantees, whether the worklist can change between calls, or datasource-scoping behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its payload before the workflow instruction. The dense list of column metadata is somewhat run-on but every element earns its place; no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, annotations covering safety, and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to explain the workflow and handoff, which it does fully. An agent knows what it gets back, what to do next, and when to stop.

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 100%, so limit, tables, and datasource are already documented in the schema. The description echoes the 'tables' semantics ('instead of the next pending ones') but says nothing about limit or datasource defaults or interactions. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource and scope ('next tables that still need business Terms') and enumerates the payload (candidate columns with types, sample values, uniqueness, formats, foreign keys with their Terms, modeling rules). It is clearly distinct from siblings like describe_table or get_term, and it names the downstream tool save_table_terms.

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?

It gives an explicit workflow: call this, then call save_table_terms once per table, and repeat until remaining is 0. It also implicitly covers the re-modeling case via the 'tables' parameter. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or named alternative for other listing needs, which keeps it below a 5.

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