List Allowed Table Properties

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, and idempotent, lowering the bar for behavioral disclosure. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by specifying what the response will contain: value type, multiplicity, and allowed enum values.

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?

Two sentences carry the full purpose, the tableType decision rule, and the output contents with no filler. The most important scoping instruction is front-loaded and directly actionable.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return value shape. It covers the key usage distinction for tableType and relies on the schema for parameter details. It could go slightly further by noting behavior for invalid or unknown table kinds, but current coverage is strong.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description restates the tableType behavior already present in the schema description, adding little new semantic value beyond confirming the tool's output contents.

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' with a clear resource: properties allowed in a requested table context. It names the decisive distinction between omitting tableType for Properties-table entries versus providing a public table kind, which separates this tool from all sibling list tools.

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 gives clear, actionable context on when to omit versus provide tableType, which effectively tells the agent how to select the correct request scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but this tool has a unique purpose among the siblings, so the lack of exclusions is not a significant gap.

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