list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return fields (table ID, name, schema) and implies a read-only listing operation. However, it does not mention any potential limitations (e.g., whether system tables are included, ordering, or permission requirements) that could affect behavior.

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 consists of two short, information-dense sentences that state the action and the output. There is no unnecessary detail or repetition of schema information.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality (what it does and what it returns). It does not address potential edge cases like pagination or access control, but these are less critical for a basic table listing operation. Overall it is sufficiently complete for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 documents the single parameter database_id with a description that already includes the pointer to list_databases, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List all tables in a database') and specifies the resource (tables within a database). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_databases (which lists databases) and get_table_fields (which accesses fields) by focusing on table listing. The return fields are also specified.

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 indicates the tool is used to list tables within a specific database, and the parameter description points users to list_databases for obtaining the database_id, providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this versus siblings like get_table_fields or preview_table, so no exclusions are given. This gives clear context but lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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