list_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; the word 'Read' does signal a non-mutating operation and the field list sets expectations about output shape. It does not disclose whether all tables are visible given permissions, whether system tables are included, or whether the call is paginated or expensive.

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 lists the returned fields in a logical order with zero filler, which is ideal for a zero-argument 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and a 0-parameter tool has little surface area to cover. The main remaining gap is visibility/scope of the listing (permissions, system tables), which is minor but not nothing.

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 for the description to disambiguate. No parameter confusion is possible.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates exactly what is returned: table names, labels, columns and row counts. This makes it clearly an inventory/discovery tool, distinguishable in spirit from describe_table and query_rows, though it never explicitly states the contrast.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the siblings an agent could pick instead (describe_table for detail on one table, query_rows for data). The discovery role is only implied by the returned fields, leaving the agent to infer that this should come before describe_table or query_rows.

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