tables_db_list_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions filtering via search but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), if it requires authentication, any rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens if the databaseId is invalid. The description adds minimal context beyond basic functionality.

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 sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds useful filtering information. There is no wasted language, and both sentences earn their place by providing essential context without 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and filtering but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, errors, output format) and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations. For a list operation, more context on result structure or limitations would be helpful.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (database_id, queries, search) thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining that the search parameter 'filters your list results', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's technical details. However, it doesn't provide additional semantics like examples or usage tips for the queries array.

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's purpose: 'Get a list of all tables that belong to the provided databaseId.' This specifies the verb ('Get a list') and resource ('tables'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'tables_db_get_table' (singular) or 'tables_db_list_columns'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'tables_db_list' (which might list databases rather than tables), leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides implied usage by mentioning the search parameter for filtering results, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tables_db_get_table' (for a single table) or 'tables_db_list_rows' (for rows within a table). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, such as whether the database must exist or have permissions.

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