list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does state the return shape: a list of {name, description}. It clearly communicates that the operation is a read-only listing of all tables, which is sufficient given the tool's simple intent.

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 appropriately brief and front-loads the core action and scope before explaining return shape and usage. Every sentence adds distinct value, with no repetition or fluff.

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 zero-parameter catalog tool with no output schema, the description alone fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. Nothing critical is missing, and the tool is simple enough that additional detail would not meaningfully improve agent performance.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information the description needs to supplement. The description focuses on the return format instead, which is the only semantic detail an agent needs for invocation.

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 identifies the action as listing every table in the shop database and clarifies that each entry includes a short description of the table's contents. It also positions the tool as an entry point for discovering available entities, distinguishing it from sibling tools like describe_table.

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 advises using this tool first to understand what entities are available, providing clear contextual guidance for when it should be called. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude cases, but for a zero-parameter discovery tool that guidance is sufficient.

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