get_dictionary_overrides

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. The description suggests a read-only operation (listing overrides) but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or safe. It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or return format. The lack of behavioral details is acceptable for a simple list tool, but could be improved.

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 concise, with a clear main sentence followed by two brief usage examples. It is front-loaded with the primary action and uses no unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. However, it does not describe the return value or output structure, which could be helpful for an agent. The examples partially compensate, but some behavioral context (e.g., whether results are paginated) is missing.

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 provides descriptions for two of three parameters (67% coverage). The description adds value by showing example combinations of parameters (e.g., table='incident', field='priority', override_type='mandatory'), which helps agents understand how to use them together. This exceeds the baseline for a tool with good schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'List all dictionary overrides on a table, or find overrides for a specific field.' It uses specific verbs and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_dictionary_override and delete_dictionary_override by emphasizing auditing and checking before creation.

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 advises when to use the tool: 'Use this to audit what a child table has customised vs its parent, or to check whether an override already exists before creating one.' It provides examples for different query combinations. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear given the sibling tools.

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