listTableAggregations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required scope ('tables:read') and marks it as read-only, which is helpful for understanding permissions and safety. However, it doesn't describe behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned aggregations, leaving gaps in operational context.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with every sentence adding value: it states the action, resource, API endpoint, required scope, and read-only nature without any wasted words. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the purpose, scope, and safety but lacks details on output format, pagination, or error behavior. With no output schema, the description should ideally explain what 'aggregations' are returned, but it doesn't, leaving some operational gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'tableId' fully. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid tableId or how to obtain it). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('Lists') and resource ('aggregations for a Tulip Table'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getTableAggregation' or 'runTableAggregation', which would require more specific scope clarification.

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 by mentioning the required scope ('tables:read'), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getTableAggregation' (for a single aggregation) or 'runTableAggregation' (to execute an aggregation). The context is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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