list_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions output fields but does not state that the operation is read-only, any permissions required, or behavior on invalid base_id. The word 'List' implies a read operation, but this is not explicitly confirmed.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and scope, with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key output fields without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

This is a simple, one-parameter listing tool. The description specifies the return fields (id, name, type), which is important since there is no output schema. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the scope and result, though it lacks explicit edge-case handling (e.g., invalid base_id) or read-only guarantees, which would make it truly comprehensive.

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% for the single parameter (base_id), and the description adds the context that this parameter identifies the base to list tables from. However, no additional semantic details are provided beyond what the schema's 'Base ID, from list_bases' already states, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tables within a NocoDB base'), and specifies the output fields (id, name, type). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_bases (bases) and list_records (records).

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 implies usage by stating 'within a NocoDB base' and the base_id parameter is described as 'from list_bases', suggesting a prerequisite. However, no explicit guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives or what exclusions apply, leaving usage context mostly implicit.

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