list_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List all tables' transparently implies a read-only enumeration with no destructive side effects, but it does not disclose whether system tables are included, how a missing schema is handled, or whether special permissions are required.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes to the action ('List') and the scope ('all tables in a schema').

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the object and scope, and the schema documents the parameter default. The main gaps are explicit sibling routing and edge-case behavior, which are minor for this simple operation.

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 100% description coverage for the single parameter, including the default value for schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema already supplies the semantics.

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 and resource: 'List all tables in a schema.' It clearly communicates the tool's function and scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools such as describe_table or query.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of query, execute, or describe_table, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The intended usage is only implied by the word 'List,' with no routing context for alternatives.

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