list_datasets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the responsibility of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool lists tables and views with type and column count, which is the primary behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention that it is read-only or describe any permissions or side effects, though the verb 'List' implies a non-mutating operation. This is a minor gap, making the transparency adequate but not fully explicit.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the exact purpose and return fields, and the second providing context on when to call it. There is no redundant information; every phrase adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: what is listed, what is returned, and when to use it. It also provides a rationale that ties into the sibling tool run_sql_query. Minor gaps like handling of empty databases or system schemas are not critical for this simple tool, so it is fairly complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Per guidelines, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none exist, but it also doesn't need to. Thus, it meets the baseline.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('every table and view available in the database') and explicitly states the output fields ('type and column count'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning this as a discovery tool, and the note that run_sql_query needs real table names reinforces its 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 provides explicit usage timing: 'Call this first when exploring an unknown database' and explains why, noting that run_sql_query depends on these names. This is clear guidance for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but for a listing tool, the directive to call it first is sufficient. It also implies an alternative (run_sql_query) but frames it as a dependent tool rather than a direct alternative.

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