list_segments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool lists all segments, but does not disclose key behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, whether pagination is involved, what 'all' means (e.g., across workspaces?), or any rate limits. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded, which is good for conciseness. However, it sacrifices important information that an agent needs, making it too minimal. Every sentence should earn its place, but this single sentence is insufficient.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain the structure of the returned list, whether there is any filtering or sorting, or how to handle potential errors or empty results. For a tool that presumably returns a list of segments, more context is needed for effective use.

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 has one required parameter 'input' which is an empty object with a non-descriptive description 'Parameters for listing segments'. Since the parameter appears to be a dummy placeholder with no meaningful properties, the description should clarify that no arguments are needed or what the empty object signifies. The schema coverage is 100% but fails to add value. The score is baseline 3 as the parameter is essentially meaningless.

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 returns a list of all segments in Metabase, specifying the verb 'Get list' and the resource 'segments'. However, it does not differentiate from other list tools such as list_all_tables or get_segment (which retrieves a single segment), but the purpose is clear enough.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search, list_segments (if it exists), or get_segment for a specific segment. There is no mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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