hana_list_tables

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 states the tool lists tables but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination), whether it requires specific permissions, or any limitations (e.g., performance with large schemas). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably returns data.

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 purpose ('List all tables') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it optimally concise.

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 address behavioral aspects like output format, error handling, or usage context relative to siblings. For a simple list tool, this might be minimally adequate, but the absence of output details and sibling differentiation is a notable gap.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'schema_name' documented as optional in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying the parameter's purpose without explaining edge cases (e.g., what happens if omitted, default behavior). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('List all tables') and resource ('in a specific schema'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'hana_list_schemas' or 'hana_describe_table' beyond the obvious scope difference, preventing a perfect score.

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 like 'hana_list_schemas' (for listing schemas instead of tables) or 'hana_describe_table' (for detailed table info). It also doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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