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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Usa SQL parametrizado' (uses parameterized SQL), which hints at safe query construction, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, or what the response format looks like. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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: one sentence stating the core function and a short second sentence about parameterized SQL. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no redundant or irrelevant information.

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?

The tool is simple (1 optional param, no output schema), so the description is reasonably complete, but gaps remain. It does not explicitly state what the returned data looks like (e.g., list of table names) or clarify 'visible tables' in terms of permissions or system tables. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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_description_coverage is 100% since the only parameter schema_name is described as 'Nombre del esquema'. The description adds value by explaining that the filter is optional ('opcionalmente filtradas por esquema'), clarifying the parameter's role beyond just its name.

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 tool's function: 'Lista tablas visibles' (lists visible tables), with optional schema filtering. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like list_schemas (lists schemas) and describe_table (describes a single 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?

The description implies usage for listing tables, and the optional schema filter gives context, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as list_schemas or execute_query. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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