List CASDA foreign keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds limited value by specifying the scope ('originating from the requested table') but does not disclose additional behaviors like auth requirements or error handling.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the action and resource. No extraneous information; every word is useful.

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 presence of an output schema and clear annotations, the description is adequate for a simple listing tool. However, it does not clarify the direction of foreign keys (whether the requested table is the source or target), which could lead to ambiguity. The description could be slightly more complete.

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%; both parameters (table_name, schema_name) have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add further semantic details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists foreign keys from TAP_SCHEMA originating from a specific table, distinguishing it from sibling tools like casda_list_tables or casda_describe_table. However, the phrase 'originate from' could be ambiguous about whether the table is the parent or child in the foreign key relationship.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like casda_list_tables or casda_describe_table. Usage is implied: if you need foreign keys, use this. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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