List Tables

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds information about the return format (type, owner, estimated row count) and default parameter values, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentence followed by a structured list of arguments and returns. Every part is necessary, concise, and front-loaded with the core 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?

For a simple list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, parameters, and return structure. It lacks details about edge cases (e.g., empty schema) but is otherwise 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the default for 'schema' from DB_SCHEMA env or 'public', which is not in the schema definition, and clarifies the default for 'type'.

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 'List all tables and/or views in a schema', specifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kb_list_schemas (schemas) and kb_describe_table (single table details).

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 explains what it does and its parameters but does not explicitly tell when to use this over alternatives like kb_describe_table or kb_list_schemas. Usage is implied but not guided.

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