List Code Search Tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds transparency by explaining what the returned tables represent: 'These are the tables and fields that are searched when performing a code search with that group.' This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying the output semantics. No contradictions with annotations.

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 brief and well-structured: two paragraphs, each sentence adding value. The first sentence states the primary function, the second clarifies what the results mean, and the third/fourth provide usage guidance. No filler or repetition.

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 list tool, the description is complete. It explains the output (tables and fields), provides use cases, and references sibling tools for related actions (`add_code_search_table` and `list_code_search_groups`). With annotations covering safety and schema fully documenting parameters, no additional context is needed.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including the note that `search_group` is the NAME (not sys_id) and to use `list_code_search_groups` for available groups. The description itself does not add additional parameter details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List the tables associated with a code search group.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tables') and distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining these are the tables and fields searched during a code search. It also references related actions like `add_code_search_table`, further clarifying its role.

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 description provides explicit use cases: 'Use this to understand what a search group covers, or to identify if a specific table is missing and needs to be added via add_code_search_table.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and introduces an alternative (`add_code_search_table`) for the case when a table is missing. It could more explicitly name non-use situations, but the guidance is clear.

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