All Table Names

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation with 'Return' and specifies user tables only. However, it does not mention potential performance implications of returning every table, or behavior when the connection parameter is null.

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 sentence that immediately states the operation and scope with zero filler. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 is simple, one optional parameter, and an output schema exists, the description covers the primary purpose. However, it omits any guidance on the connection parameter or prerequisites, leaving a small but relevant gap for correct invocation.

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 0% description coverage for the only parameter, 'connection', and the description only mentions 'the connected database' without explaining how the parameter is used, its default behavior, or what happens if null. The description fails to compensate for the parameter's missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('every user table'), and a clear scope ('the connected CUBRID database'). This distinguishes the tool from siblings like filter_table_names, which implies a filtered subset, and schema_definitions, which covers table structure.

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 implies the tool is used when you need the full list of user tables, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like filter_table_names or schema_definitions. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided; usage is inferred rather than directly guided.

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