list_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (listing tables) without mentioning side effects, permissions, read-only guarantees, or any operational constraints. The read-only nature is implicit in 'list' but not explicitly disclosed, and no additional context (e.g., authentication, response format) is given.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy, earning the highest score for conciseness.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states the scope ('e-commerce database') and the action. However, it does not explicitly describe the return format (e.g., a list of table names, metadata, or schema), which an agent might need to know. Since no output schema exists, the description could have mentioned this, but it is a minor gap for such a straightforward operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, the baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description adds no parameter semantics, which is acceptable because there are no parameters to document.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all available tables in the e-commerce database'), clearly distinguishing the tool's purpose from siblings like describe_table (schema details) and read_query (data queries). It states exactly what the tool does with no ambiguity.

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 that the tool is for discovering available tables but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus the sibling tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the action verb. This is adequate but not explicit.

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