db_list_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' conveys a read-only operation, and the Oracle/Postgres note adds schema-behavior context. However, it does not disclose prerequisites like an active SQL session, whether the operation can fail if no session exists, or what schema is used when the schema parameter is empty.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides relevant cross-database context that helps an agent choose the correct schema 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?

The definition is adequate for a straightforward listing tool and benefits from the output schema. However, it omits guidance on session_name, connection prerequisites, and what happens when schema defaults to an empty string, so an agent may not fully know how to invoke it correctly in all situations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning to the schema parameter by explaining the difference between Oracle schema-as-owner and Postgres public schema. Yet it says nothing about session_name or the behavior of default values, leaving part of the parameter surface unexplained.

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 states a specific action ('List tables') and a clear resource ('tables in a SQL schema'), which distinguishes it from non-SQL sibling tools like mongo_list_collections and redis_keys. The Oracle/Postgres schema nuance further clarifies what is being enumerated.

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 implies when to use it: for listing tables in a SQL schema, especially with Oracle or Postgres session contexts. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives such as db_describe_table for schema details or db_query for data access, so the usage guidance is mostly implicit.

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