list_hg_tables_in_a_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the action and output format (table types), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or whether it's read-only. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all tables in a specific schema') and adds necessary detail ('including their types'). There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and output format, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what the tool returns would be helpful for completeness.

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%, with the single parameter 'schema' well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the schema is for listing tables, which aligns with the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 verb ('List all tables') and resource ('in a specific schema in the current Hologres database'), specifying the scope and what information is included ('including their types'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_hg_schemas' (which lists schemas, not tables) and 'show_hg_table_ddl' (which shows DDL for a specific 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 implies usage by specifying 'in a specific schema' and 'current Hologres database', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like executing SQL queries directly. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, though the context suggests it's for listing tables rather than other operations.

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