list_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose useful behavior — user tables plus views, scoped to a specific database, with row counts — but says nothing about permissions, cost on large databases, or read-only semantics beyond what 'List' implies.

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?

One lead sentence covering purpose, then a compact Args block for the single parameter. Front-loaded and efficient; the Args block mildly duplicates the schema but adds the default-fallback detail that justifies its presence.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the resource, the scope, and the parameter's default behavior. Only miss is any mention of how this relates to the sibling schema/introspection tools.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains db_path is an optional path to the SQLite file and that omitting it falls back to a default database path. That is exactly the semantics an agent needs and the schema does not supply.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') plus resource ('user tables and views in the SQLite database') and adds output scope ('with their row count'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_database_schema or describe_table, so it stops 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?

No guidance on when to pick this over get_database_schema or describe_table, and no stated prerequisites. The only usage context is the implicit meaning of db_path's default.

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