list_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the database is cached and row counts are approximate, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't mention whether it's read-only, requires permissions, or any other behavioral nuances.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that announces the operation and the key output attribute (row counts). No unnecessary words.

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 list tool with comprehensive schema and no complex side effects, the description sufficiently explains what the agent will receive. Output (tables/views with row counts) is stated, and necessary inputs are in schema.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (appId, dbName), so the schema already documents them. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail beyond referring to a 'cached database'.

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?

Description clearly states it lists all tables and views in a cached database with approximate row counts. The specific verb 'list' and resource 'tables and views' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_databases and list_packages.

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?

Implied usage is clear: use to inspect table/view names and row counts within a database. No explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations, but context is clear. Sibling tools provide contrast, but description doesn't name them.

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