list_dialects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the read-only listing behavior and the subject matter (supported SQL dialects). It does not detail output format or ordering, but for a simple enumeration tool this is acceptable and not misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states what the tool does and its intended companion tools, every word earns its place.

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 zero parameters, an output schema present, and low complexity, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and usage context. It doesn't need to explain return values because the output schema exists, and there are no potential user-input pitfalls to warn about.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to describe. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema coverage is complete and the description adds relevant context about the tool's purpose, even though no param details are needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly names the resource ('SQL dialects SQLFluff supports'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like lint_sql or fix_sql, which are operations on specific SQL content rather than meta-information.

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 explicitly says 'for use with lint_sql / fix_sql / parse_sql', providing clear usage context as a prerequisite for those tools. It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but given there are no other listing tools, the context is sufficient.

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