list_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The word 'List' implies read-only operation, but there is no mention of whether system objects are filtered, whether special permissions are required, or how the search_path is handled. The description offers no additional behavioral detail beyond the basic action.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or extraneous detail.

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 listing tool, the description conveys the essential function, but it omits important context such as the dependence on db to identify the correct database (since schema names are often not globally unique) and what the return format is (e.g., just names, or with metadata). This makes the tool adequate but not fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional assumptions.

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 only 33%, but the description adds little new meaning. It repeats the object_type enum values (tables, views, sequences, extensions) which are already in the schema, and it only vaguely references 'in a schema' without explaining the relationship between the required schema_name and the optional db parameter. The db parameter's role remains unexplained beyond its schema description.

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 clearly identifies the resource (tables, views, sequences, extensions) and scope ('in a schema'), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_databases and list_schemas that target other entity types.

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 such as get_object_details or get_top_queries, and it does not mention prerequisites like the need to specify a database (db) to disambiguate schema names. It only states the core action without any contextual selection advice.

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