List Code Search Tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any auth requirements, or potential side effects. The behavior is implied to be safe but not explicitly stated, which is a gap for a tool with no 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?

Three sentences, no fluff. First sentence states the core action, second provides context, third gives usage guidance and alternative. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description fairly covers what the tool returns ('tables and fields'). It lacks explicit mention of output format or structure, but is adequate for most use cases.

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%, and the description adds value beyond the schema. For 'instance', it explains the fallback to environment variable; for 'search_group', it provides context on how to find the name using another tool. This enriches the parameter understanding beyond raw schema definitions.

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 lists tables associated with a code search group, explaining what these tables represent. While it distinguishes from its sibling 'add_code_search_table' implicitly, it does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_code_search_groups', but the context is sufficient for most agents.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to understand what a search group covers') and provides an alternative tool ('add_code_search_table') for adding missing tables. This is perfectly aligned with the highest standard for usage guidance.

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