list_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the filtering capability by schemas but doesn't describe what information is returned (e.g., table names, metadata, pagination), whether it requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with a database.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. It could be slightly improved by specifying the return format, but it avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it appropriately concise for a simple listing tool.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of table names, structured data), potential errors, or behavioral traits like permissions needed. For a database tool with no structured safety hints, this leaves the agent under-informed about critical usage aspects.

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%, with the parameter 'parameters' documented as an optional array of strings for schema filtering. The description adds marginal value by clarifying this is for filtering by schemas, but doesn't provide examples, format details, or explain what happens when no schemas are specified beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb ('Lists') and resource ('tables in an MSSQL Database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes between two modes (all tables vs. tables in specific schemas), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_table' or 'read_data' which have 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'list_table' over 'describe_table' (which might provide detailed metadata) or 'read_data' (which reads table contents), nor does it specify prerequisites like database connection requirements.

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