list_tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the import_type scale (0 read-only through 3 editable anytime) plus the lock-state requirement for type 2. It omits pagination/ordering behavior around limit, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then the entry structure, then args — good ordering with no filler. The Args block is partly a restatement of the schema, which is minor redundancy but it does add semantics.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still explains the shape of each entry (table key + import_type) which is the critical piece for chaining into get_table. Combined with the filter/empty/limit semantics, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must carry all three parameters, and it does: filter matches tables whose key contains every word (with examples), include_empty includes tables with no data, and limit caps the returned count. Each definition adds meaning the bare schema does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List CSiBridge database tables') and qualifies the scope as model definitions plus analysis/design results. It references get_table as the consumer of the returned table keys, which implicitly separates it from that sibling, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_table/edit_table.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery step before get_table/edit_table, and the import_type legend hints at which tables are editable. There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no exclusion, and no naming of alternatives.

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