pg_list_tables

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately conveys a read-only listing operation and the default-public-schema behavior, but it does not state the output shape, whether system schemas are included, or any ordering/filtering behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 highly informative sentence. It front-loads the core action and resource, then tucks default and override behavior into the second clause without any filler or repetition.

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, low-risk listing tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description covers everything necessary for correct invocation. No output schema exists, but the return value (table/view names) is self-evident from the tool name and description. It is complete enough, though it could theoretically mention whether views are included (it does) and if filters are supported (they aren't).

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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters already described in the input schema. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing the public default and the optional nature of database/profile overrides, but the schema alone mostly suffices. This meets the baseline without going beyond it.

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 opens with the specific verb 'List' and a concrete resource, 'tables/views for a schema', immediately distinguishing this from siblings like pg_list_databases and pg_list_schemas. The default schema and overrides are stated clearly, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 makes the use case clear: call this when you need to enumerate tables/views in a schema, with optional database/profile overrides. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or route to alternatives, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is unambiguous.

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