list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool returns cached tables (not live) and that results can be optionally filtered by schema. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as authorization requirements, side effects, or how missing schema affects the result set. The key 'cached' detail is useful, but overall transparency is moderate.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and a key variation. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or extraneous detail. This is an excellent example of concise, effective tool documentation.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema that covers return values, the description is largely complete. It conveys the main action, the optional filter, and the 'cached' aspect. It could be improved by stating that omitting the schema returns all tables for the connection, but the phrase 'optionally restricted' implies this. Overall, the description is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explicitly clarifies the 'schema' parameter's optionality and purpose ('optionally restricted to one schema'). However, it does not explain 'connection_id', which is required and central to the operation. Since connection_id is reasonably self-explanatory and the description adds meaning for schema, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 tool's function: listing cached tables. The verb 'List' is specific, the resource is 'cached tables', and the optional schema restriction adds useful scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_schemas (which lists schemas) and describe_table (which describes one table).

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 gives implicit usage context by mentioning 'cached tables' and optional schema filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention that this is for cached tables only, nor does it point to a tool for live tables. The usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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