db_list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is transparently stated. It does not mention any destructive or modifying behavior, aligning with the expected safe nature of the 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 that conveys all necessary information without redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

The description is complete in the context of this simple listing operation. No output schema is required, and there is no missing information that would prevent the agent from correctly invoking the tool. The optional overrides and defaults are clearly stated.

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?

All three parameters have descriptive text in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The 'profile' parameter explicitly explains possible values and the default behavior, and 'schema' and 'database' are self-explanatory. No additional explanation is needed beyond what is provided.

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 action (list), the resource (tables/views), and the scope (schema with default public). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like db_list_schemas and db_describe_table by focusing on tables/views.

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 useful usage context by noting optional overrides and defaults (schema, database, profile). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the purpose is self-evident from the name and description, making the intended use case clear.

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