lira_list_input_tables

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious side effect: calling it may launch the LIRA application ('starts LIRA if needed'). It also discloses the table inventory and column shapes, plus a resource URI for deeper detail, which is useful context beyond the annotation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the inventory and a reference pointer. The parenthetical column formats are dense but earn their place as domain detail; only the line wrapping makes it slightly harder to scan.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the resource URI covers column formats and FE type codes. The one unresolved question is whether listing tables requires an open model, which the description does not clarify.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing the description could add on that axis. The inline enumeration of typical tables (Nodes_Coordinates, Elements_TypeAndNodes, etc.) compensates by describing the shape of the result instead.

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 states the specific resource (the set of input tables supported by this LIRA release) and implicitly the list verb. The trailing pointer 'Read a table first to see its value format' distinguishes it from lira_read_table, though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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 workflow hint ('Read a table first to see its value format') implies this is a discovery step preceding table reads, and '(starts LIRA if needed)' signals it can be called cold. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus lira_read_table or lira_list_models, leaving the agent to infer the sequencing.

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