Listar tablas

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 the resource and default, repeating the schema's default. It discloses nothing about output format, limitations, ordering, or whether system tables are included, so the description is almost completely lacking in behavioral transparency.

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 short fragment, not a full sentence, but it is front-loaded with the core information. It is concise but under-specified, lacking any elaboration on operation or context.

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 is simple, but given the sibling tools and lack of output schema, the description should clarify what 'tables' means (e.g., names vs. details, includes views?) and what the response looks like. It does not, leaving the description incomplete.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description only repeats the default 'public' already present in the schema's default field. It adds no explanation of valid values, error behavior, or the meaning of the schema parameter beyond its name.

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 'Tablas de un schema (default public)' clearly identifies the tool's output as tables in a specified schema, and the default value 'public' adds scope. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'List') and does not distinguish from siblings like 'schema_summary' or 'describe_table', so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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 given about when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as describe_table or schema_summary. The description neither states contexts nor exclusions, so it provides no usage direction.

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