list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'list[s]' tables, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, error conditions (e.g., invalid connection_name), rate limits, or behavior when 'schema' is null vs. specified. These are important gaps for a database connection tool.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices information needed for tool selection and correct invocation. Slightly more detail (e.g., about the schema parameter) could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which helps with return values), the description lacks essential context about input semantics (especially the schema parameter), error handling, and behavioral guarantees. For a tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, this description is insufficiently complete for correct agent invocation.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate entirely. While 'connection_name' is mentioned in the description ('named database connection'), the 'schema' parameter (which is optional and can be null) is not explained at all. The description does not clarify how 'schema' affects the listing (e.g., filter by schema, ignored if null). This is a significant gap.

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 or collections') and context ('in a named database connection'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like 'describe_table' (which describes a single table) and 'get_schema' (which retrieves schema-level metadata). It leaves no ambiguity about what this tool returns.

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 minimal usage guidance. It does not specify when to use this tool versus 'get_schema' or 'describe_table', nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., connection must exist). It lacks exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions, relying on the user/agent to infer context from sibling names.

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