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 usefully discloses the schema-scoping rule and that results are non-system schemas, but says nothing about permissions, behavior for other database types, or ordering limits.

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 compact sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and behavioral detail following. No padding, though the opening sentence and the schema clause could be tightened slightly.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by describing the returned 'tables' field structure (schema/name/comment) and the schema-filtering rule. Complete enough to call correctly, though permission and non-listed-DB behavior remain unspecified.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed beyond the active connection.

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+resource ('列出...所有表名与表注释') and adds return scope (names and comments only), which cleanly separates it from describe_table and search_schema. An agent can tell which tool returns a flat table listing without opening any schema.

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?

Explains the schema-filtering behavior for PostgreSQL/MSSQL/Oracle, but frames it as return behavior rather than when to pick this tool over siblings like describe_table or search_schema. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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