duckseek_list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is read-only, explains that row counts come from stored profiles, and defines the meaning of 'rows: null'. These details add meaningful context beyond the input schema, which 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?

The description is compact: the primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the only additional detail is a useful clarification about row counts. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 parameterless listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, grouping, row-count semantics, and read-only nature. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed; the schema fully covers the (empty) parameter set.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List registered tables grouped by source, with row counts.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings (duckseek_status and duckseek_ask), which appear to cover status reporting and question answering rather than table enumeration.

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 intended use is strongly implied by the imperative 'List registered tables,' and the zero-parameter signature makes invocation straightforward. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over duckseek_status or duckseek_ask, nor does it provide any exclusion or condition-based guidance.

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