list_tables

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool defaults to 'public' and enumerates both tables and views, adding behavioral context beyond a generic listing tool. However, it does not mention permissions or whether system schemas are included, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences, succinct and front-loaded: first states the purpose, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 simple listing tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, the default behavior, and prerequisite tool. It doesn't mention potential filtering or permissions, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the schema parameter's default ('public') and directing users to list_schemas for valid values. This adds meaning beyond the schema's default value, though not extensive.

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 tool lists tables and views in a schema, using the specific verb 'List' and resource 'tables and views'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_schemas and describe_table by focusing on schema-level object 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?

It explicitly instructs to use list_schemas first to find valid schema names, providing an alternative tool for schema discovery. It also notes the default schema, giving guidance on when no parameter is needed. This is clear usage context without needing exclusions.

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