list_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states a read-only action ('list') which implies non-destructive behavior, but does not disclose return format, whether it includes views or system tables, or any connection prerequisites. The description is not misleading but is sparse on behavioral detail.

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 immediately states the purpose. No wasted words and no redundancy with the schema. It is optimally front-loaded.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of table names) and any prerequisites (e.g., an active connection). It only says 'list tables,' which is a minimal definition but leaves some ambiguity about the exact output structure. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100%, so both parameters are already described in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 tables') and the resource ('in a schema for a DBeaver connection'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_schemas and describe_table. It fully conveys what the tool does.

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 (when you need to list tables) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like list_schemas or describe_table. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided, so it relies on inference.

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