list_tables

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'List' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or require any special permissions. It also does not mention pagination or performance characteristics. The description is functionally accurate but offers only minimal behavioral insight beyond the obvious.

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 wasted words. It states the core action and the key optional modifier (schema filter) immediately. It is highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 listing tool with 3 optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It clearly specifies the scope (all tables, optionally filtered by schema). It does not explicitly state output format, but the term 'List' implies a list of table names. Given the tool's simplicity and that parameters are covered by the schema, nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so all three optional parameters (schema, server, database) are already documented in the schema. The description only mentions the schema filter, which repeats the schema's description and does not add additional semantic value. It does not explain how server and database parameters behave when omitted, which is already covered in the schema.

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 tool's function: listing all tables in a database. It uses a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('tables'), and mentions an optional schema filter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_views (views) and list_databases (databases), making its purpose 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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_views for views, list_schemas for schemas), nor does it state any exclusions or conditions. An agent is left to infer that this tool is only for tables, but no explicit routing to siblings is offered.

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