schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about the operation being read-only, whether results are paginated or truncated, or how the optional 'table' parameter alters behavior. It only restates the visible listing purpose, leaving the behavioral profile essentially empty.

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?

It is a single short sentence with the action front-loaded, which is efficient. However, the parenthetical '(part of the schema tool)' adds no information and consumes part of an already minimal description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is a simple two-parameter read. Still, with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the definition leaves parameter behavior and usage relative to 'query' unexplained, which is thin for even a simple discovery tool.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: neither 'db_path' nor the optional 'table' (default empty string) is explained, and it is unclear whether passing 'table' filters, scopes, or changes the output. This leaves an agent guessing about a required parameter.

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 states a concrete verb+resource: listing the database's tables and views. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling 'query' tool, so an agent must infer the read-only discovery role on its own. The parenthetical '(part of the schema tool)' is redundant self-reference rather than differentiation.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus the sibling 'query', no prerequisites, and no guidance on the relationship between the two. The only contextual hint, 'part of the schema tool', describes the tool itself rather than when to use it.

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