mysql_list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify whether it requires specific permissions, what format the output takes (e.g., array of table names), if there are rate limits, or any error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context for a tool that interacts with a database.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's zero wasted language, no redundancy, and it's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of purpose.

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 this is a database interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (table names, metadata?), doesn't mention authentication requirements (though siblings suggest connection management), and provides no context about error handling or constraints. For a tool that presumably returns structured data from MySQL, more context is needed.

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%, with the single parameter 'database' fully documented in the schema as optional and defaulting to current. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (it doesn't mention the parameter at all). According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 resource ('in the current database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like mysql_list_databases (which lists databases) and mysql_describe_table (which describes a specific table). However, it doesn't specify that this lists ALL tables or mention any filtering capabilities, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use mysql_list_tables versus mysql_query for table listing, or how it relates to mysql_describe_table for detailed table information. The only implicit context is 'current database,' but no explicit usage scenarios or exclusions are provided.

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