list_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does real work: it characterizes matching semantics (fuzzy, case-insensitive, substring, with a worked example) and explains that limit prevents a huge catalog from flooding the response. Gaps remain on read-only confirmation, behavior on a nonexistent database, and whether system tables are included.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, with parameter guidance following in a short block. Every clause earns its place — the rationale about flooding justifies the limit parameter rather than padding the text.

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 read operation and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the two non-obvious parameters and their failure modes well; the only shortfall is not clarifying when to prefer this over the sibling schema-dump 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: pattern is defined as fuzzy, case-insensitive substring matching with a concrete example ('order' matches ORDERS, order_items), and limit is defined as a row cap. The only unaddressed item is the database parameter, which is self-evident from the tool's purpose.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus scope: 'List all tables and views in the named database', so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It is distinguishable from list_databases and get_table_schema, but it never addresses how it differs from overlap-prone siblings like get_database_schema or dump_schema_faithful, which also surface table inventories.

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?

Provides practical usage advice — 'Narrow instead of listing everything' — and tells the agent to apply pattern/limit on large catalogs. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no when-not conditions, so routing between this and the other schema-listing siblings is left to inference.

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