list_hierarchies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It describes the conceptual output (hierarchies with ordered levels) but says nothing about read-only behavior, permissions, empty results, or how the required instance is resolved; with an output schema present, return-value description earns little extra credit.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the examples earn their place by clarifying what a hierarchy is. Slight verbosity from dual examples, but no wasted sentences.

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 low-complexity read-only list tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and its scope. However, it omits the semantics of the required 'instance' parameter and gives no behavioral cues to substitute for the missing annotations, leaving clear gaps.

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 single required parameter 'instance' has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The description cannot compensate, leaving the agent to guess what 'instance' means (model name, connection, file path). A 2 reflects that only the broader tool context hints at its meaning.

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?

States the specific verb 'List' and resource 'user-defined hierarchies', gives concrete examples (Year > Quarter > Month), and explicitly contrasts with 'flat tables/columns', which implies a boundary against list_tables/list_columns. It does not name a sibling tool directly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for a complete picture of the model's structure beyond flat tables/columns' implies when to reach for this over flat-table listing, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no alternative tool named. Usage must be inferred from the scope clause.

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