list_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it lists 'all' tables and views, which implies a read operation. However, it does not state that it is non-destructive, read-only, or if there are any performance implications. For a simple listing tool, this is acceptable but could be more 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: the first defines the action, the second provides usage guidance. It is concise, front-loaded, and every word earns its place. No redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 tool with 2 simple parameters, no required fields, and an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers what the tool does and when to use it. It does not mention edge cases like system tables or performance, but given the low complexity, it is sufficient.

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 detailed descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it 'Lists all user tables and views available in the current database.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'inspect_table' (which inspects a single table) and 'schema_overview' (which likely gives a broader schema summary). The purpose is explicit.

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 includes 'Use this to understand what architectural entities exist,' which provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives (siblings), so it slightly lacks in exclusion guidance.

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