basecamp_list_columns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states 'List all columns' with no additional behavioral context. It does not disclose whether it returns paginated results, whether it is read-only, any access requirements, or what happens if the table is empty. The verb 'list' suggests a read operation but no explicit reassurance is given.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it 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?

The tool has low complexity (2 simple parameters, no output schema), and the description minimally covers the purpose and implied return (a list). However, it lacks any details about the response format, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools. It is adequate for a simple list operation but does not provide the richness expected for full contextual completeness.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to 'project_id' and 'table_id'. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description does not clarify their roles (e.g., that project_id identifies the project and table_id identifies the card table) or any formats. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'List all columns in a card table' clearly states the action (list), the resource (columns), and the scope (all columns in a card table). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like basecamp_list_cards (lists cards) and basecamp_get_column (gets a single column).

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. It does not mention prerequisites, when to prefer it over basecamp_index_get_columns or basecamp_get_column, or any exclusions. The usage is only implied by the verb 'list' and resource 'columns'.

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