list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation (list) and describes the return content, which is useful. However, it does not mention what happens if the database_id is invalid, whether the result is sorted, or any pagination behavior. For a simple list operation, the added return metadata partially compensates for the lack of annotations, but not richly.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states what it does, the second clarifies the return data. No filler or 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 straightforward list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the purpose and the return fields. It could benefit from explicitly saying it returns an array of objects, but the phrasing 'Returns table id, name, order, and other metadata' adequately conveys the result. The absence of annotations and output schema is compensated by the explicit return field list.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'database_id' is already described as 'The database (application) ID to list tables from.' The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, so it relies entirely on the schema. Baseline for high schema coverage is 3.

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 states the action ('List all tables in a database') and specifies the resource (tables within a database). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on tables, not databases, fields, or rows. The mention of return fields ('table id, name, order, and other metadata') adds clarity.

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 implies its usage: to retrieve tables from a database. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like list_databases or list_fields, nor does it state conditions such as 'use this before listing fields' or 'for database info, use list_databases'. The context is clear but not expanded with exclusions 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.