list_temporal_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only list operation, but it does not mention permissions, performance considerations, or behavior when no temporal tables exist. The lack of explicit safety disclosure is a minor gap.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant or unnecessary words. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a simple list tool with optional filter parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main functionality (listing temporal tables and showing history tables) and the schema covers parameter semantics. It does not mention that schema filtering is optional, but this is a minor gap given the simplicity.

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?

Both parameters ('schema' and 'database') have descriptions in the input schema, providing 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 system-versioned temporal tables in a database, showing the linked history table for each.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_tables by focusing on temporal tables and the inclusion of the history table.

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 implies usage for listing temporal tables, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives such as list_tables, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but no alternatives are named.

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