listTableRecords

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the required authentication scope ('tables:read') and explicitly marking it as read-only. It also implies pagination behavior through the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters, though it doesn't detail rate limits or exact return formats.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place: it states the purpose, maps to the API endpoint, specifies the required scope, and notes the read-only nature, all in three brief clauses without any wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (list operation with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, authentication, and safety, but could improve by hinting at the return format (e.g., a list of records) or error conditions, which would help compensate for the missing output schema.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, such as default values for 'limit' or typical usage patterns, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Lists records') and resource ('of a Tulip Table'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'getTable' (which retrieves table metadata) or 'getTableRecord' (which fetches a single record). The mention of the corresponding API endpoint reinforces the specific scope.

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 provides clear context by specifying the required scope ('tables:read') and indicating it's read-only, which helps identify when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like 'getTableRecord' for single records or 'listTables' for listing tables instead of records.

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