mssql_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the read-only nature implicitly via 'List', but does not mention permissions, whether system tables/views are included, behavior when no database is specified, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler. The core operation and scope are front-loaded, and every word contributes value. The description is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description plus schema covers the basic call. However, the lack of annotations, absence of usage guidance, and silence on behavior quirks (e.g., required database despite schema marking it optional) leave moderate gaps. It is minimally viable but not richly 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a mild rephrasing of the database parameter ('specified MS SQL database') and does not clarify the optional schema filter's format or default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clear resource ('all tables and views in a specified MS SQL database'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like mssql_list_databases and mssql_describe_table by naming the exact object types and database scope.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that mssql_list_databases should be used first to find available databases, nor does it explain when mssql_describe_table would be more appropriate. Usage context is left entirely to inference.

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