list_lob_columns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the shape of the result set (the LOB-specific attributes), and 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about permissions required, behavior when the table has no LOB columns, or error handling for an unknown table.

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?

A single sentence with the resource front-loaded and the returned attributes trailing. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the return fields an agent needs to decide whether to call it. It is only missing edge-case behavior (non-LOB tables, unknown table errors), which is a minor gap.

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%, and the schema already explains both 'table' and the optional 'schema' with its default-to-current-schema caveat. The description adds only the implicit notion that 'table' is the target of the listing, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List LOB columns of a table') and enumerates the attributes returned (segment, index, caching, logging, SECUREFILE flag, retention), which scopes it well against generic siblings like describe_table. It does not explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling, which is what keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as describe_table or get_ddl for broader column metadata. Usage is only weakly implied by the phrase 'of a table'; the agent must infer the call context entirely.

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