list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose an important behavioral trait—deny-marked tables are omitted from results—and 'List' implies a read-only operation. It stops short of detailing return format or permissions, but for a simple listing tool this is solid.

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?

Two short sentences that are front-loaded and contain zero filler. The main action is stated first, followed by a single relevant policy caveat.

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 zero-parameter list tool with a simple purpose, the description is nearly complete: it states what is listed and the visibility rule. The only minor omission is an explicit statement of the return shape, though 'List' strongly implies a list of table names.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema-description coverage by default, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'available database tables', and adds a precise policy restriction: tables marked 'deny' are omitted. This makes it easily distinguishable from query_table, describe_table, and gateway_status.

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 tool's intended use is implied: call it when you need an inventory of accessible database tables. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like describe_table or query_table, nor does it state when this tool should not be used.

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