list_linked_servers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key behavior: the tool requires certain permissions and returns an empty result set if the login lacks them. This goes beyond a generic 'list' and aids the agent in anticipating outcomes.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds a crucial permission caveat. No unnecessary words 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete for selection and invocation. It covers the main purpose and the critical permission behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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 function: 'List all linked servers configured on the SQL Server instance.' This uses a specific verb ('List'), specifies the resource ('linked servers'), and scopes it to the instance. It is distinct from sibling tools which target other database objects like tables, roles, or schemas.

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 makes it clear when to use this tool: when you need to list linked servers. It also provides a prerequisite (VIEW ANY DEFINITION or sysadmin) and notes the empty result behavior on permission failure. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the resource specificity among siblings provides sufficient context.

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