List Castables

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish that this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the bar for added value is lower. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the operation itself—no mention of the limit default, pagination, server resolution, or any caveats.

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?

A single six-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero wasted words. It is efficiently written, though it could have spent a few more words on sibling differentiation without becoming bloated.

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 tool with complete annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the essentials of a correct call. The notable gap is selection guidance in a large sibling set with several competing list tools, which the description does nothing to address.

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%: server_id, caslib_name, and limit are each documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb (List), resource (tables), and scope (a CAS library), so the core function is immediately clear. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from sibling table-listing tools such as list_compute_tables or list_source_tables, leaving the differentiation implicit.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided and no alternatives are named. Given siblings like list_caslibs, list_source_tables, and list_compute_tables in the same tool set, the agent receives no help deciding which listing tool fits its scenario.

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