list_tables

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates a read-only action and the 'estimated' nature of row counts, but it does not mention any other behavioral traits such as permission requirements, default schema behavior, or limitations. This is adequate but not rich.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence with no padding. It conveys the core operation and a valuable detail in minimal words.

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, single-parameter listing tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It could benefit from a brief note about the default schema or an explicit read-only statement, but the essential usage context is covered.

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%, but the description adds little meaning beyond the schema: it mentions 'a schema' without explaining the parameter's allowed values, default, or required behavior. The schema's 'default: public' provides more actionable information than the description does.

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 specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('tables and views in a schema'), and an informative detail ('estimated row counts'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_schemas, describe_table, and list_indexes, which target different resources or operations.

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 clear context: use this tool when you want tables or views in a schema. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the resource scope is narrow enough that an agent can infer the appropriate use case without confusion.

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