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 states the core function but adds no extra context such as whether the operation is read-only, requires any permissions, or has side effects. While the purpose is clear and it is evidently a passive listing operation, the description does not explicitly guarantee that nothing is mutated or that it is safe to call repeatedly.

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 that states exactly what the tool does with no superfluous content. Every word earns its place, and it is immediately scannable. It achieves maximum conciseness while preserving clarity.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (providing the return format), the description is complete for its purpose. It tells the agent what the tool does (lists table names) and nothing more is required for a successful invocation. There are no configuration details, prerequisites, or edge cases that need to be disclosed.

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 takes zero parameters, and the schema shows an empty properties object, so there is no parameter information to add. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly reflects that no arguments are needed. It does not add anything about parameters because there are none, but it also does not create any confusion.

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 a precise resource ('names of every table in the database'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings: 'ping' (health check), 'describe_table' (specific table schema), and 'run_query' (executes queries). An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and why it differs from the others.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used to discover tables before querying or describing them, nor does it note any limitations or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the sibling names, not stated.

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