get_picklist_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output shape and gives a critical behavioral insight: 'matching values alone do not prove a binding' — a non-obvious trap that could mislead agents. However, it does not address error conditions, permissions, or what happens when required parameters are missing, leaving some gaps for a read operation.

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 with zero waste. The first sentence states the operation and return format; the second explains the critical is_global distinction and lists supported column types. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 read tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return structure and the interpretation caveat. It does not explicitly explain that option_set_name OR entity/attribute must be provided, but that is captured in the schema's mutual exclusivity descriptions. The key missing piece is a note on what happens when neither parameter set is given, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so each parameter's purpose is already documented. The description does not add format or syntax details beyond the schema. It mentions Local vs Global but does not explicitly map them to parameter groups, though the mutual exclusivity is defined in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for a well-covered schema.

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 states a clear purpose: 'Read a Local or Global OptionSet' and specifies the exact output structure. It distinguishes this read operation from sibling tools like add_picklist_option, update_picklist_option, and delete_picklist_option, which are mutations. The mention of column types (Choice, Status, State, MultiSelect) further narrows the scope.

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 context about when the tool applies (column types) and how to interpret results (is_global caveat), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it name exclusions or conditions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it meets the minimum but lacks direct routing to alternatives.

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