get_questdb_toc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool returns (a TOC listing) but does not explicitly disclose that it is a read-only operation or describe the output format. For a simple getter, this is adequate but lacks explicit safety/behavioral detail.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and no fluff. The second sentence provides practical usage guidance. Excellent conciseness.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description explains the purpose, content, and usage sequence. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though more detail on the return structure would be helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about the content of the TOC, which is sufficient given there is nothing to parameterize.

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 'Get' with a resource 'table of contents listing all available QuestDB functions, operators, and SQL keywords'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_questdb_documentation, which presumably fetches detailed docs for specific items.

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?

It provides explicit timing guidance ('Use this first') and the context ('before requesting specific items'), which implies a sequential workflow relative to get_questdb_documentation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not to use this tool.

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