list_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output contents (engine, row count, size, comments) but does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or behavior when database parameter is null. The optional parameter 'database' with default null creates ambiguity not resolved by the description.

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, perfectly concise with no wasted words. The key information (action, scope, output details) is front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and output. However, it fails to explain the null database case and the structure of returned data, leaving minor completeness gaps. It is adequate but not thorough.

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%, and the description only vaguely ties the 'database' parameter to 'specified database'. It does not clarify format, default behavior, or valid values. The implication that a database must be specified conflicts with the parameter being optional (default null), causing confusion.

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 tables), the scope (specified database), and the included details (engine, row count, size, comments). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_databases and describe_table. The verb-resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., describe_table for table structure). It lacks explicit instructions on prerequisites or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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