dba_tableSqlList

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description mentions that when persist=True, it 'materializes result as a volatile table and returns table name', which is a write operation. This contradicts the readOnlyHint, misleading the agent. The description itself is transparent, but the contradiction between description and annotations warrants a score of 1 per the scoring rule.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, followed by parameter definitions. However, the parameter section is redundant given the schema's full coverage. Every sentence is useful except the parameter list, which could be omitted. Still, it's not excessively long.

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 covers the main purpose, usage, and the persist behavior. However, it does not describe the return format for the normal case (e.g., a list of SQL statements), which would be helpful. The default value for no_days (7) is only in the schema, not mentioned. Overall adequate but slightly incomplete.

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%, and the description's parameter section essentially repeats the schema's descriptions verbatim (e.g., 'Number of days to look back'). It adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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 'Retrieve SQL statements that have been executed against a specific named table', with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also differentiates from sibling dba_userSqlList by specifying when to use each.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: only call when user explicitly names a table, otherwise ask for clarification. Also states not to use for user-specific history but to use dba_userSqlList instead.

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