Get Choice List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that the response carries the owning application scope and capture name, which is useful behavioral context, but it never explains the shape of the returned choice list (labels, values, ordering) for a tool with no output schema.

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?

It is a single sentence with the verb front-loaded, which is good, but the phrase "with the list's application (the one to write it in) and capture name" is syntactically awkward and forces the reader to parse what is being returned.

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 simple read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials and hints at returned metadata. It still leaves the return payload's structure and the relationship between application/capture name and subsequent writes unexplained.

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 coverage is 100%, so table, column, instance, and language are all documented in the schema itself. The description only reinforces the language parameter via "in one language", adding nothing about defaults or instance fallback beyond what the schema states.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Read a column's choice list") plus the language scoping, which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like set_choice or remove_choice without opening the schema. The trailing clause about application and capture name is unclear in purpose but doesn't undermine the core identification.

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?

Usage is only implied: the parenthetical "the one to write it in" hints that this is a read-before-write lookup, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool is named. The agent must infer that set_choice/remove_choice are the mutation counterparts.

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