list_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and an optional filter; it does not mention return format, pagination, ordering, or what 'purpose' means. There is no indication of side effects, but the read-only nature is implied by 'List' rather than explicitly disclosed.

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 very short and front-loads the main verb and resource. Both sentences serve a purpose, though the second sentence is a sentence fragment. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool, though the phrase 'with purpose' is slightly vague and could be clearer.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally viable: it states the core operation and the filter. However, it leaves the meaning of 'purpose' unspecified and does not mention that valid family values could come from list_families, so an agent may lack enough context to use it precisely.

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 for the meaning of the 'family' parameter. It does so by calling it an 'Optional family filter', which clarifies that it is optional and serves as a filter. However, it does not specify how the filter matches (exact, partial, etc.) or where valid family values come from, leaving gaps.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'List catalog tables' tells the agent exactly what the tool does. The phrase 'with purpose' hints at what is returned, and the resource 'catalog tables' distinguishes it from siblings like list_families, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as list_families or describe_table. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where an alternative would be better. The only additional sentence is about the family filter, which is parameter guidance, not tool-selection guidance.

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