list_ets_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists the metadata fields returned and the sorting order, making the tool's behavior predictable. It doesn't mention performance or side effects, but as a straightforward read-only listing tool, this is sufficient.

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 succinct and well-structured, with the main action and output fields in the first sentence, followed by a 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NEXT STEP' section. Every sentence provides useful guidance, with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what will be returned (metadata fields and sorting) and gives practical context for when to invoke it, plus a follow-up action. There are no gaps in understanding.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% since it has no properties. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. It adds value by describing the output, which is more than enough.

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 tool lists all ETS tables with specific metadata fields (name, row count, memory, type, protection, owner) and mentions sorting by memory descending. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_ets_table, which reads table contents.

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?

It provides a 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly stating the tool is for discovering existing ETS tables and finding the most memory-intensive ones. It also suggests a concrete next step (use inspect_ets_table), though it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it. This is clear context, just missing explicit exclusions.

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