List Tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavioral fact is the default-schema fallback; it says nothing about empty results, case sensitivity of the wildcard, or limits, so it adds modest value only.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. Slight redundancy with the schema text on the wildcard and default schema, but overall efficient and easy to scan.

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?

With an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description need not explain return values, and it adequately covers invocation for a two-optional-param list tool. The only gap is disambiguation from search_tables, which is a routing concern the description should have closed.

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 both parameters (filter, schema) are already documented in the schema, including the wildcard example and default behavior. The description merely restates that the filter uses * and that schema defaults, adding no new syntax or constraint 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list tables) with scope (in a schema/library) and the default-schema fallback. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling search_tables, which also filters tables by name pattern, so an agent cannot cleanly choose between them from this text alone.

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?

It mentions that the default schema is used when none is supplied, which is helpful context, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusion or alternative pointing toward search_tables, list_schemas, or describe_table. The overlap with search_tables is left unresolved.

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