sql_endpoint_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the operation returns all endpoints within a workspace, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, filtering, or permission requirements.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to defining the action, resource, and scope.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only list operation, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. It does not describe the return shape, but no output schema exists and the list semantics are self-evident from the tool name and description.

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 sole parameter workspaceId is already fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no new semantic detail. The phrase 'in a workspace' simply reinforces the parameter's role.

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 identifies the action ('List'), the resource ('SQL endpoints'), and the scope ('in a workspace'), so an agent can tell this from sql_endpoint_get or sql_endpoint_execute_query. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the verb and resource make the purpose 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 intended use is implied: call this when you need to enumerate all SQL endpoints in a given workspace. There is no explicit statement of when to use it over other list tools or whether it is a prerequisite for sql_endpoint_get, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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