list_golden_sql

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pagination behavior and the read-only nature of the operation. It doesn't mention any side effects or permissions, but for a list tool this is acceptable. The pagination details add meaningful behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the pagination guidance is concise. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and the non-obvious pagination behavior. It doesn't explain response fields, but the output schema covers that. It lacks a note about default page behavior, but overall it's complete enough for a simple listing tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'page' parameter usage via pagination instructions, but doesn't explain 'page_size' or the exact meaning/format of 'knowledge_base_id'. Partial compensation, but not complete.

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 a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'Golden SQL examples' and scope 'attached to a knowledge base'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_golden_sql and delete_golden_sql.

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 provides explicit pagination usage instructions (read has_more/total, pass page=1,2,...). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the list operation's purpose is self-evident in context.

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