List Harbor tables

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses the return format (JSON with tables array and pii_masked flag), notes that PII may be partially redacted, and states that unlisted tables will be rejected. This important behavioral context is not present in the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: core purpose in the first line, then usage guidance, args, return JSON example, and a restriction note. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy, and the JSON example is compact.

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?

Although no output schema is provided, the description fully documents the return structure with an inline JSON example, including the pii_masked flag. It also explains the closed-world behavior that unlisted tables cannot be queried. Combined with strong annotations, all aspects of the tool's behavior are specified.

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 input schema is empty, and the description explicitly states 'Args: none,' confirming there are no parameters. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no further parameter details because none are needed.

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 starts with 'List every table an agent may read, with row counts and a one-line note on each,' which clearly identifies the action (list) and scope (all tables). It distinguishes itself from siblings like harbor_describe_table by focusing on all tables rather than a specific one.

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 instructs 'Call this first when you do not already know the schema. It is cheap and it prevents guessing.' This is a clear when-to-use directive. It also mentions that tables not listed here will be rejected by harbor_run_query, which proactively warns against querying unknown tables.

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