list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses that this is a read operation (listing), describes filtering behavior, and specifies the return format. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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?

Perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place, providing essential information without redundancy. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, documents all parameters thoroughly, and references the return structure, making it fully adequate for agent understanding.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters with clear semantics, examples, and default values. It adds significant value beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage understandable.

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 specific action ('List all tables and views') and resource ('in the database'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_databases, list_stored_procs, or describe_table. It precisely defines the scope of what is being listed.

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 implies usage for retrieving database objects, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_databases or describe_table. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't contrast with other listing tools.

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