mysql_legacy_list_tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that it lists both base tables and views, operates on exactly one database, and uses SHOW FULL TABLES. This is meaningful additional transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and mechanism before moving to sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to quickly parse purpose and alternatives.

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 read-only list operation with one well-documented parameter, the description covers the operation, scope, mechanism, and related sibling tools. No output schema exists, but the description clearly implies the returned content (base tables and views) through SHOW FULL TABLES. Nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single required 'database' parameter as a MySQL database name with length constraints. The description mainly repeats 'Pass database' and adds the context that this parameter selects the target database, but does not add substantial semantic detail beyond the schema.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Lists base tables and views in one database via SHOW FULL TABLES FROM database.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like mysql_legacy_list_databases, mysql_legacy_describe_table, and mysql_legacy_show_create_table by naming the exact scope and mechanism.

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 explicitly tells the agent to pass the database parameter and routes related tasks to specific siblings: describe_table for column types, show_create_table for CREATE TABLE text, list_indexes for keys, and list_databases for listing databases first. This is explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete alternatives.

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