List tables in a schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context: it includes views and materialized views, returns comments, and filters by the connected role's read permissions. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 phrase adds meaning: object types, scope, comments, and access control.

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 read-only list operation with annotations providing safety context, the description covers the key aspects: object types, scope, comments, and permission filtering. There is no output schema, but the return contents are sufficiently implied. It could mention ordering or limit behavior, but that is not critical for this 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?

Schema description coverage is only 50% because the 'schema' parameter lacks a description. The tool-level description mentions 'in one schema' but does not clarify the format or accepted values for the schema parameter. The 'database' parameter is well described in the schema, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema parameter details.

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 specifies the verb 'list' and the resource (tables, views, materialized views) within a single schema, and includes comments. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_schemas and describe_table, which serve different purposes.

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 implies use when you need to enumerate objects within a schema and indicates the scope ('in one schema'). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to distinguish from list_schemas or describe_table.

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