list_tables_in_current_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what format the output takes (though output schema exists), whether it's paginated, or if there are rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the core functionality immediately.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about permissions, output format details, or connection requirements. While the output schema handles return values, the description doesn't provide helpful context about what 'current schema' means operationally or how this interacts with sibling tools.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description correctly indicates no parameters are needed by not mentioning any, which aligns perfectly with the schema. For zero-parameter tools, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when the description doesn't incorrectly suggest parameters.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('table names in current schema'), making the purpose unambiguous. It specifies 'in current schema' which distinguishes it from potential sibling tools that might list tables across schemas or databases. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_table_definition' which retrieves table structure rather than just names.

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 context ('current schema') but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'execute_query' for custom SQL queries or 'get_table_definition' for detailed table information. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned.

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